So let’s be clear about this: Andrew Marin makes his living dancing around in the middle ground between pretending to say, and actually saying, that it’s perfectly okay to be gay. Like others of his ilk who have discovered the benefits to be had by essentially exploiting the gay issue (and even if your audience doesn’t yet, you “progressive” Christian leaders know who you are), Marin trades in the fuzzy, non-committal language that ultimately serves no purpose beyond allowing Christians to feel better about maintaining their conviction that homosexuality is a sin.
By way of demonstrating that—which I only do because I know some of you out there still think Marin truly supports gay people, and I hate to see you wasting your affections—I offer this recent Twitter exchange between Andrew and me:
Andrew Marin: [Part 1] You don’t know all the facts, neither does Dan. Pls come to Boystown & talk to me & all the LGBT folks & activists that [Part 2] love & support us. Open invite always stands. Would love to hang.
John Shore: true! I don’t know all the facts. I did read lots of your work on your site; I never saw you say gay isn’t a sin.
[Here Andrew greatly surprised me by writing that he has never said that being gay isn't a sin. I was less surprised when he quickly deleted that Tweet, and in its place wrote:]
Andrew Marin: Let’s hv a convo then. U seem like a guy wanting to communicate the truth & not hear-say. Shame u didn’t reach out beforehand. [Part 2] Just wish convos happen. Problematic when respectable folks don’t take 1 extra step b4 they make public statements.
John Shore: I DID take the extra step: I read the articles by you on your site. That took real time.
Andrew Marin: Then u noticed I focus on cultural engagement regardless of belief system; not focusing on belief alignment. So we going 2 talk?
John Shore: Tell me homosexuality isn’t a sin, and we’ve got ourselves a chat. Don’t, and we don’t–cuz then I already know who u r.
Andrew Marin: Tell me when 2 grown men must hv a prerequisite agreement before they can hv a simple convo? U nervous to talk instead of type?
John Shore: Why would I be “nervous” about talking to you? You play the middle for your own gain. Hardly intimidating.
Andrew Marin: All I want to do is have a real life conversation. Too much scapegoating online w/140 characters; not sufficient.
John Shore: “It’s no sin to be gay.” That was 21 characters. See how easy?
And that’s when Andrew decided to end the conversation.
I don’t expect to hear from him again. But I’m confident that if I do, he won’t say anything beyond how important it is to continue the dialogue, to keep building bridges, to “live in the tension,” to reach out in love, fuzzy, fuzzy, blah, blah, tastes great, less filling. Because selling that kind of sugar-powdered waffle is how Andrew makes his money.
Andrew: If you’d like to say about gay people what you feel you can’t in 140 characters, I offer you this space to do so. I have a lot of readers who don’t believe that same-sex relationships are inherently sinful. I know that they (and I!) would love to hear that you agree with them on that. I sincerely hope that I am wrong in my understanding that you would no sooner unambiguously state that than you would film yourself pushing a gay teenager off a cliff.
If you’d like to learn more about sneaky and squirmy Andrew Marin, read this. Or this. Or watch this video of him, in which he says this:
My beliefs line up with the evangelical belief system. Scot McKnight and Dan Kimball, who are both widely recognized as leaders of the emergent movement today, are kind of breaking from that whole movement, because they’re saying, ‘Listen, we have a high view of scripture [meaning a literal, inerrant view], we believe in a real traditional interpretation of everything … and that’s where I align myself with, with them two. … Evangelical Christians, look into my eyes, and just know that I believe the same thing you believe … I just live it out in a counter-cultural way … but this doen’t mean I’m flying off to a different theological belief system.
How anyone still takes this guy seriously is beyond me.
![John Shore on The Huffington Post](http://johnshore.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/huffpost.jpg?w=120 "John Shore on The Huffington Post\")
{ 392 comments… read them below or add one }
1 2 3 »
This pisses me off, Marin. And I’m torn a bit. So, please hear me out.
I just recently read Love is an Orientation and I thought it was good. Not because of what it said about gay rights, but Jesus. At first, it seemed to me a very third way approach which, given Jesus’s common responses, struck me as a way for conservative folks to dip their feet in the water of…”oh, maybe QUILTBAG folks aren’t the monsters we assumed.”
I really, really wanted to like Marin because, well, I always felt he came from a place of good intentions. Good as a Christian was ever going to get, until I found folks like John and the rest of you guys. Plus, he was someone I could recommend to my pastor who might convince him that there is no gay agendas beside wanting full citizenship.
Then, I thought about it. As a woman, am I satisfied with being considered inferior to men? Do I accept the “separate but equal” distinction of complementarian gender roles? Would I love nothing more than for John Piper and Mark Driscoll and Wayne Grudem to “repent” and stop saying hurtful things that trigger me every time they open their mouths? And, what about the women who are suffering in the Quiverfull and Christian Patriarchy movements, abused by their husbands. Or what of the women who are told to be more “submissive” by their pastors when their husband starts to abuse them.
I call bull shit.
And, now that Marin is laid out this way, I realize he is no longer cutting it. It is not satisfactory to “converse” about it any longer. In fifty years, when conservative Christians have lost the debate, loving the sinner bull will be remembered as the last outpost of the cowardly.
Ugh.
In 50 years we will be studying how, once again, good people got something so wrong. Homosexual behavior is a sin and no amount of wrangling is going to change that, not now, not 50 years from now and not 500 years from now.
Fuck off, troll.
(Man, that feels good!)
One day you will admit the fact that your perception of God is your choice. You choose the type of God you follow based on acceptance of your own or others interpetation of scripture and testimony. So ultimately YOU CHOOSE to follow a God of conditional love or unconditional love. Quit trying to hide behind the bible as your excuse to codemn others.
God love us all unconditionally but also wants us to “sin no more.” An impossible command to be sure but one we should do our best to follow. Jesus says loving God is following His commandments. Loving others like we love ourselves is not allowing, condoning, affirming or tolerating ourselves or others to sin.
You are correct that you have chosen your own god to follow so you can live, or let others live exactly the way they want. Unfortunately Christianity is not living the way we want but living the way God wants us to live. Homosexual behavior is not the way of God.
What a bunch of horse manure. You just reinforced my point completely. You cherry pick the bible to justify your own shortcomings and your need to feel superior to others. You mention the commandments but still bear false witness. You are much more interested in removing the speck from teh homos eyes than removing the board from your own. You think you have the last word on what divine love is but that is really not your call.
Don’t try to reason with Frank. He doesn’t want to grow or learn. Thinking is too difficult for fundies like him. Like you said, he just wants to hide in his preferred biased translation of the Bible and pretend he has all the answers.
He’ll never change his mind; he’s too stubborn and blind.
agreed. i’m done. sigh…
seems some people think God is Hugh Hefner
@Frank… I agree with you on *In 50 years we will be studying how, once again, good people got something so wrong. * ie. slavery… We are definitely progressing in a positive way… but so much work must be done… 50 years from now we will look back and wonder how we ever allowed homosexuality to be called *sin*. 50 years from now we will have full marriage equality. 50 years from now our LGBTQ brothers and sisters will be viewed as equal in every sense of the word. TODAY, I will do my part to help make this happen sooner, rather than later… Human lives depend on it. and Frank, instead of stewing over how right you are… take a week long break from your ‘rightness’ and try meditating on the word LOVE. Simply picture LOVE in your head for 1 week. Hearts, Hugs, everything Happy and Peaceful… and then get back to us… or not.
@Gina Cirelli I sometimes use ‘u’ and ’2′ because i’ve some learning issues. lol!
Interesting…
1) This smells for all the world like Mr. Martin has noticed that both you and Dan Savage have been getting some increased attention lately and he’s trying to increase his blog traffic.
2) This back-and-forth reminds me of a quote from Steel Magnolias, “Are you married or are you not? These are not difficult questions.”
It isn’t a difficult question, and I think it is very suspicious that someone who says he works so closely with the LGBT community refuses to answer it.
3) Other commenters seem to take the “What’s the harm?” approach in talking to someone like Mr. Martin. I think giving yet another “love the sinner, hate the sin” guy a platform to again spout such nonsense is indeed harmful.
He says he just wants a conversation … about what? He’s not interested in getting together to share lasagna recipes. So, obviously he wants to talk about teh gays. Or more accurately, it seems that he wants to get together for you to talk about teh gays because he’s unwilling to actually contribute anything himself. Seems to me that any conversation ought to include the ability to ask a simple question and get a simple answer. If he’s not willing to do that, then I’m not sure how anything resembling a “conversation” could happen.
If he wants to get his message out there, I assume he has his own blog. It sounds to me like he’s just annoyed because his site stats have been down lately.
Dear God. Grown people type with “u” “2″ etc? When I see that crap I automatically assume the person is an idiot. May or may not be true, but I’m old so sue me. I just don’t want to see the English language die.
Twitter has a 140 character limit (because it started as an SMS service). Sometimes it’s necessary to take shortcuts
Things that are continually changing don’t die. It’s when they stop evolving that they die.
I should say “and being flexible” because i don’t really think those abbreviations are a permanent part of English. I think they are a flexibility for the medium at hand…
I’m qualified to teach English but I’m VERY bad at texting and have an ancient phone, so I use the “code”. Sometimes when I have a toddler on one arm and a cat in my lap I do it on the Net too.
Grammar Paladin: Points out when bad English becomes incomprehensible. Knows the difference between formal standard and informal colloquial.
Grammar Nazi: Ignores message because of form.
I don’t understand the point in alienating this guy. People that are interested in legitimate conversation are father along/more helpful than the [whatever you want to call them, etc] Fundamentalists, right?
It’s not a question of alienating this guy. If he has a position for or against homosexuality, he ought to state it. There’s no “legitimate conversation” to be had without first establishing a starting point on which to have the conversation.
He is really no different from fundamentalists when you get down to it. He talks all nice, warm and fuzzy, but he isn’t in way, shape or form for gay rights. It’s a sophisticated version of the “love the sinner, hate the sin” BS and even “you can be gay, just don’t act on it”.
I get what you guys are saying, but if this is the case, how do you ever expect to shift anyone’s views if you are unwilling to even consider/converse with those who are honestly wrestling with the issue? How will you win them over?
It’s probably because I’m reading from his side, but Marin comes across as awfully gracious in this exchange (and don’t stretch my words…i’m speaking of the exchange itself)
I can also see the frustrations with the impression that Marin had a more…clear stance than it appears he does. I just get frustrating seeing the lack of patience/tolerance for those who are honestly seeking to sort out the complexity of these issues.
ah… I should have read. Echoing Bo and David’s exchange below.
I’m far from convinced that Marin is honest about his motives. It all seems very self-serving and self-promoting to me. It’s way too much about *him*
fair enough. I’m hesitant to make that judgement, but I don’t have he experiences that many here do. Nor am I knowledgable about his work.
it just seems….slippery to be assuming people’s motives. You can judge the fruit and make a conclusion, but no one ultimately, completely knows what’s in the heart of a person (including themselves). Motives are tricky, complicated things.
But fun to discuss.
Get him, John! You can’t affirm LGBT individuals if you mark them as committing a habitual sin. That’s what the fundies do; “hate the sin, love the sinner”, and it makes me sick.
John,
In your estimation, is every Christian regardless of context who does not come full out as a GLBTQ affirming ally as deluded or fraudulent as Andrew? Rob Bell, for example. Is there any credence whatsoever in keep channels of communication open by not being explicit in this moment in history in the interest of being a bit more subversive in order to reach people to whom would immediately tune out of an explicit approach? I assume that Rob, and others (including Shane Hipps) are operating under this pretense, what may be considered a pragmatic rather than idealistic (which isn’t pejorative) approach to ending bigotry (not to endorse the former, I am with you more or less in the latter camp).
Bo – I understand your thought, but I don’t think it’s a valid approach? As a Christian who is gay, the message that “I’m going to pretend the core issue doesn’t exist for the sake of harmony” is bad enough – yet another debasing position (i.e., RHE). But to say “let’s not talk about the core issue so that we can have productive dialog” is even worse. It is cowardly and creates empty dialog. It does nothing to affirm the personhood of gay people. The only thing that Marin’s approach will do is encourage people to smile as they continue to victimize LGBT people in the church.
David,
Let me clarify, with someone like Rob Bell, I am positive the message is not ““I’m going to pretend the core issue doesn’t exist for the sake of harmony” or let’s not talk about the core issue so that we can have productive dialog.” What I was referring to is not at all motivated by maintaining harmony or creating productive dialogue that avoids the issue. Rather, it was the practical realization that perhaps for a particular congregation, it is better to talk subtly instead of explicitly so that you can reach an audience that would not attend a GLBTQ affirming church, but perhaps can be persuaded over time while their hearts are softened with messages of compassion, e.g. the picture of God that Rob Bell and Shane Hipps paint and explicate would not conceivably condemn anyone for their sexuality, but by letting those on the margins figure this out themselves, rather than explicitly telling them, they not only remain a part of the community “for the sake of harmony,” but pragmatically it may be the ONLY way to reach some close minded folks. Again, I do not know how tenable of a position this is, but I suspect this is what is in the back of many pastors’ minds. There is certainly the reality that if this approach just “encourage[s] people to smile as they continue to victimize LGBT people in the church” then it’s time to stop it. But I don’t think that’s the case of somewhere like Mars Hill (in Grand Rapids) like it is in Driscoll’s Mars Hill, for example.
Hi Bo –
Thanks for the clarification, but I think I understood you correctly the first time: A softer sell might go further towards changing hearts and minds. OK, I might be able to buy that concept. But without acknowledging that homosexual relationships are not sinful (even if whispered), one is not selling anything other than kumbaya. What kind of support is *that* for a LGBT kid who is trying to figure out why God “cursed” him with these “sinful” feelings? I don’t think I’ve ever heard Rob Bell come out and say that homosexuality is not sinful (please correct me if I’m wrong). When can we expect prominent evangelical faith leaders to take a risk and speak out in love to affirm people who are gay?
As someone without a congregation to minister to and someone who is not earning a living as a member of the clergy, I would do it now. But those caveats are important. Fortunately, I think (hope) it is as inevitable as civil and women’s rights. But alas, I’m just a theologian in training, all I have to do is write and argue (and live in a very liberal community), affirmation is no problem!
This will be a good post to see. I think much discussion/progress, etc… hinges on this very point.
I know what Jesus would do. He wasn’t big on the soft sell. In fact he went as far as explicitly stating that he came to tell people right from wrong so those who insisted on following wrong would have no excuse.
Or wasn’t he? He seemed quite happy to dine and party with people he vehemently disagreed with, and I’m sure, given the repeated invitations, it wasn’t just a matter of Jesus berating those with misguided and even hateful views. Furthermore, on at least a few of the heated issues of his day, Jesus often transcended the simple binary and provided third-way, unexpected responses. Furthermore, amongst Jesus’s followers were both tax collectors radicals (zealots)! Even in Jesus’s lifetime, his disciples perceived his mission vastly differently (Peter, until the end, expected a real Jewish Messiah who would overthrow the Romans! Matthew probably did not see Jesus this way at all…) and it seems Jesus did not simply tell them “right” from “wrong” in this sense, and even his consistant use of parable (a genre that is often inherently ambiguous) speaks further that Jesus was not the black and white prophet that many fundamentalists make him out to be.
Of course there were times when Jesus laid down the law- in the Temple, to Zachias, to the Pharisees on occasion, etc. but this is not the consistant pattern of Jesus’s ministry. I believe any wise teacher leaves room for the students to grow and figure things out for themselves, rather than dolling out simple and unambiguous answers to complex questions. Let’s be honest, we don’t KNOW Jesus would affirm GLBTQ folks – he was still, after all, a first century Jewish peasant. Cultural factors may have been just too much to overcome. However, it is my firm conviction that the radical “queering” love of Jesus, as Patrick Cheng would say, provides a powerful model to inspire our own radical practices of love and justice in our current context. It is the poetics of Jesus that leads us to justice by appropriating his message and teachings for our own time, rather than the simple transference of explicit, “eternal” unchanging truths from the first century. Jesus didn’t come just to “tell us right from wrong,” but to transform our being in unimaginable ways with new life, not answers.
good stuff Bo… thanks for keeping it honest.
can you flesh out the idea behind the Patrick Chen phrase?
I hadn’t heard that one before.
Sure Lawrence, in “Radical Love,” Cheng writes of a “second meaning” (after the conventional reference to LGBT matters and pride) of the word queer and defines it as: “a self conscious embrace of all that is transgressive of societal norms, particularly in the area of sexual and gender identity. In fact, this term is best understood as a verb or action. That is, to ‘queer’ something is to engage with a methodology that challenges and disrupts the status quo… to ‘queer’ something is to turn convention and authority on its head.It is about seeing things in a different light and reclaiming voices and sources that previously had been ignored, silenced, or discarded.”
So in this sense, if it is helpful, I fully endorse the claim that “Jesus is queer (or queering).” Of course this is just a nice little spin on a kind of Derridian Deconstructive practice, but that’s alright, I’ll cut Cheng some slack, he’s a cool dude.
pretty interesting. Thanks for the reply, Bo.
I don’t know Rob Bell, so anything I say is not about him or his work.
But at the same time, someone who does have a clear and definite (especially if it is positive) message should be able to articulate it far better than simply saying “you don’t have all the facts” in an ongoing exchange like this. And someone who does it for a living (and chooses Twitter as their medium FOR the exchange should be even more able to do so.
“Love the sinner but hate the sin” is THE default “nice” Christian philosophy about homosexuality. NOBODY claiming to be working with gay people as a professional Christian can possibly not have a view on that idea. It’s not an esoteric point, and it’s impossible not to have come across it.
So waffling on the point simply cannot be based on “gosh, never thought of that, give me a bit to think it through.”
And if his answer is some variation on “it’s more complicated than that, and the question is framed wrong, so I really can’t answer it with a yes or no until I discuss some underlying ideas that I think are common false assumptions” then he should be able to say so, clearly and distinctly, and by now, should be able to have some variation of it that fits in a Twitter feed.
If, for example, he’s assuming that John is saying “Nothing any gay person does sexually can ever be sinful” (which would make a claim that he knows and respects John’s work to be patently false; John never says such a thing) then something like “All people are sinners and capable of sexual sins that arise from the expression of their orientation, gay and straight alike” could be a starting point for a discussion.
That doesn’t disagree with John’s view, but it does move the focus more toward sexual sin than “being gay isn’t a sin” does, while both stating a similar truth.
But this “I refuse to go on the record saying anything positive about gay people while pretending to actually be positive toward gay people” is a waffle, and as such, reflects an agenda.
good insights here.
Bo, I appreciate the grey, people like this guy are in progress, etc. I can also appreciate that people like Andrew are causing some good things to happen and their intent is good. All good.
But all this movement *toward* the gay community actually needs to end somewhere conclusive. Andrew stops short of a black or white camp and to believe that we can exist in the grey in this issue is to maintain the power and control we enjoy as the privileged group in America (Christians in America are tremendously privileged, there is no other religion in our country that can actually influence *the law* like ours). To actually believe that we can “love the sin and hate the sinner” when the GLBT community has told us how damaging it is and how it does nothing for them emotionally, spiritually or legally is something we have got to pay attention to.
Andrew Martin might think he’s being loving. Offering to make amends to the GLBT community is without doubt, the right thing to do. But he is as a straight man, still calling the shots. He’s maintaining the last word on what *really* loving the GLBT community means. Until he’s willing to give them the last word, he’s not the loving guy he’s wanting everyone to believe he is. I’m sure he wants to be. I’m sure people experience him that way. But the quality of our love is ultimately determined by those who are on the receiving end. If we’re unwilling to allow them the last word on what our impact is, we’re only interested in intimacy on our own specific terms.
DR- I agree with you 100%. If anything I said was contrary to what you have said here, I misspoke or was not clear.
Thank you, DR. So many people miss that point.
This is so true – and applies equally to any combination of oppressed and oppressor. South Africa is going thru this now, as the current and previously disadvantaged communities struggle to come together in a peaceful, united nation while also dealing with decades (centuries?) of entrenched privilege… It’s so easy for the powerful to think ‘problem solved’, without realizing that the disempowered are not yet fully satisfied. The goal of equality and acceptance is only achieved when the previously marginalized say so.
For Marin to NOT acknowledge that us queers are not in sin denies a HUGE part of my humanity. i don’t have patience for people like Marin anymore.
John,
First I’m excited to know you are on Twitter – how did I miss that? (new follower now)
Second, I think you should debate him. How can minds be changed if there is no dialog?
Even if he did not change his mind immediately, think of how many potential “followers” (to use a Twitter term) you could potentially get to “see the light” or at least start having enough doubt to do some more research on their own.
You may recall I wrote about you and Dan Savage hosting the “mother of all debates” before on another thread. Let’s do it!
John has stated his opening position. How can there be a debate if Marin won’t do likewise?
Andrew Marin is a business man and a coward. He is taking money to do more of the usual, just wrapped in Exodus like fuzzy words in order to accept funds from the easily duped on both sides. A fraud. A charlatan. How could people NOT see through this man from the get go? He tailors his words and speeches to the audience he is taking money from. It is a great gig and I am sure he will play it for as long as the cash flows.
daemon
Brena…. very good words!
and Thank God for both grace and others not being the granted the right to judge any of us! It’s NOT yours to judge! Move on with compassion!! That is our only obligation.
Elizabeth…. Acts 10 would be a short answer to your question. Not to open a can of worms (or fish, in this case).
Actually, it is not a sin to be human and that is not the point of the gospels. It is in all potential to have the potential to sin. Where ever there is the potential for success, truth, and life there is the potential for failure (missing the mark), lies, and death. It was always about choosing the path and the grace and wisdom granted for those on the path to the Father. Adam and Eve was a parable about how we came to be prone to walk the path of failing, lies, and destruction. We do not have to teach most toddlers to be selfish. It seems we are prone to missing the mark. There never was hell for missing the mark. Hell was only ever for deliberate offensive destruction and lies.
Don’t form a theology based on King Jame’s English translation of mistakes and offenses being the same “sin” word. That is not what is shown in the OT or the NT if we look well.
Left to our own we will miss the mark and without the knowledge of Grace we always let our failings harden our hearts and make us willing to become offensive to success, truth, and life. It is our nature to explore, try, and fail. That is not a sin but a necessary part of growing. It is our culture to ignore the grace that covers it and hate. That is what salvation saves us from: the need to be perfect or the prison of being judged by mistakes. The good news is grace and forgiveness. That is the gospel.
Brena, you just made my day. I’ve been searching for a concise statement about what it means to be human and to be sinful, and what the difference is. Because I just haven’t been able to form coherent thoughts around this subject. All I’ve ever heard in church is that we are bad to the core and that we deserve to burn forever because of it, so the Big Angry Sky Daddy punished His kid instead; we get the benefits if we say the magic words and “accept him into our hearts.”
What you’ve written is the best explanation I’ve heard on the subject and makes a lot of sense.
Thank you. I get so sick of people acting like they know everything about spirituality and then not even explaining why they.think you’re wrong. I mean, really. It’s a sin to be human?? God MADE humans, for fuck’s sake! Anyone who says it’s a sin to be human is full of shit to the brim and obviously sees Christianity through guilt-colored glasses. Some people really disgust me.
Melody,
there’s a huge vast portion of Christianity that has taken the concept of sin in humanity very seriously. NOT that “it’s a sin to be human,” but ..that all human beings, on a deep level, to various extents and manifestions deal with brokenness and sin.
although quite a damning reality, it’s a fair assesment of humanity (if we’re honest).
I think there’s a… concern on the part of many Evangelicals (myself included here) what happens if we wholesale chuck the concepts of “sin” and “humans are sinners” out the window.
and you’re right…..a propensity of that is to lean heavy on the guilt-colored glasses, unfortunately.
Of course they are concerned with it. The concept of sin allows for the introduction of arbitrary thought crimes. Doing away with that would take away the main tool they have to control people.
Bingo. Do I believe sin is real? Of course I do. What I don’t believe is that humans are sinful to the core so that every waking minute our actions–and, as Alan has the audacity to claim–simply being human are crime-ridden. All based on two or three prooftexts taken out of context. I believe humans have good AND evil tendencies inside, not just evil as Calvinists and other conservative Christians believe. It’s what we act on that matters.
interesting.
So, sort of Dualism? (I’m not using that in a judgemental tone… just categorizing what you’re saying… with categories in and of themselves being silly)
I would posit that there is a tug-of-war, especially post-conversion/Jesus/Holy Spirit.
I believe that original sin marks, mars and permeates humanity.. although, yes, there are MANY MANY examples of “sinful people” doing very good and amazing things.
Uh, no I did not claim that anywhere. I’ve never written anything remotely like it, nor have I ever thought it. In fact, since I haven’t actually stated any of my own views about sin, Melody, why just make things up?
I don’t just make things up. I surmise based on people’s words. You said yourself that it’s a sin to be human. That tells me a lot about your views on sin.
LOL That was the OTHER GUY, Andrew Chow, to which I specifically responded that he was “mistaken about the nature of sin.”
So you didn’t make things up, you just didn’t read what I actually wrote. Scroll down and re-read more carefully. It is not a sin to be human, that’s just silly.
I stand corrected; for some reason I processed “Andrew Chow” as “Alan.” Sorry about the confusion and for giving you a hard time. (I do thnk I understand Calvinism better than Andrew understands human nature, having Calvinist relatives and all, but that’s another discussion for another time.) Thanks for setting me straight.
What part of deliberate offense such as murder and torture and rape is deleting the idea of sin?
Plain and simple: If you read the actual original words in the OT and the NT you will not find punishment or shame attached to missing the mark. “The sin of being human” is a Christian church teaching and was not present before we had one. “By one man the culmination of missing the mark and being offensive entered the world and by one man and brought misery on all…” that is one of the rare cases when the idea of mistakes and offense is balled together and the result is physical death and/or misery. The “offense” in that portion of scripture is “misguided deed” “mistake.” We all dance in our own confusion and many, like Moses, find the grace of God. It was that Grace that Jesus came to give us.
Like it or lump it, but the focus is on the Grace not the sin and they did a pretty good job of non-Inquisition style conversion in those days. Being saved because Grace is without fail available to us in spite of our weakness and often enhanced by our weakness is the Gospel and is Salvation. We are a punitive people and we like to confuse God with us. We make Him in our image and that is backwards. It is possible to do evil. Evil rejects salvation anyway. Salvation hinges on Grace and Grace is active when we try our most sincerely.
The problem with salvation by Grace is that we don’t know who is better than whom. We don’t like that. When Jesus knelt with the immoral woman he did not speak to offense or mistake. He did not speak to righteousness. He spoke to their prison; the prison that held all of them. He gave them all permission to be free from having to be punishing to prove their worth or righteousness. Only real divine nature truly is not worried about human failings and mistakes. We have to get over our guilt addiction. That is the truly offensive part of human nature. When exactly did Adam and Eve admit fault and fall on God’s Grace? I don’t remember that part either. Continuing that pattern of ignoring Grace because we are at fault is the only thing that can separate us from God and that is an illusion we create.
Now, if you want to lump human nature with serial killers, you are a fool. The desire to aim our life for the destruction of others is not naturally found in most humans even before they come to the knowledge of Grace.
Boy. He’s super-aggressive, isn’t he?
People who want off-the-record conversations are almost always saying contradictory things to opposing audiences. Exodus International has played that game for years.
Precisely, John! He is playing the game! Anyone who believes something is also willing to have it documented and published. You are spot on! he’s a hater!
By the way, I agree with some of the comments which commends Andrew Marin on his reaching out to LGBT. It’s not about his own personal beliefs; it’s about his willingness to say it was wrong for Christians to condemn others. That took courage and real moral character. People can agree to disagree, without condemning one another. You may be right that his agenda is beyond a facade of LGBT friendly brand of Christianity, but the proof is not what they say; it’s in what they do. Do they support marriage equality? Do they support anti-discrimination laws? Do they support making reparative therapy history? If they do, then what they believe is their own personal business between them and their God.
If he comes out and says it, he will lose the other side. He will automatically become irrelevant to the opposing side. I don’t know what he believes. I would hope that he can see the truth. If he does, it is wrong for him to then keep saying, or implying, that homosexuality is wrong, or against the Word of God. I haven’t been listening to him a lot, and haven’t read all his stuff, as you have, so I do not know, for myself, what all he says. Could it be that he is truly in the middle – aware that what Scripture appears to say doesn’t match up with the reality of his gay and lesbian friends, but still hanging on to what he has always thought was true? It took me a while to be able to see, and know, for myself, that the scriptures I had read and always thought/assumed were against homosexual relationships were actually no such thing. And I myself am gay – though only recently out even to myself. So, anyway, again, I don’t know what he might know inside and is not sharing with the public, but I do know that he will lose the other side if he admits publicly that the Word of God mistranslated an/or misinterpreted is the only version that is against loving homosexual relationships.
The whole point is that the “two sides” aren’t in any way equal. And he pretends that they are. One side is being discriminated against and the other side is doing the discriminating. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out who is wrong.
Lana, I think you are absolutely right in what you say, but I’m not at all clear on what you don’t say.
Is what he’s doing okay with you or not?
I can have some sympathy for someone whose ministry isn’t to gay people, or who isn’t trying to make a name for himself welcoming gay people as a significant part of his ministry. That might be cowardly, it might be prudent, it might be beside the point. And it might be quite subversive in a quiet way, laying seeds of tolerance without making it clear that’s what they are doing.
All that goes out the window when you openly and publicly aim part or all of your ministry specifically at gay people. Then you really do need to take a side on this – is your ministry actually welcoming gay people and inviting God into the fabric of their lives, or are you trying to passive-aggressively suck gay people in so you can convince them they have to change something basic about their very identity?
That’s not a minor point, and it’s not something you can be neutral on when it’s the point of what you’re doing.
is it possible for him (and others) to invite God into the fabric of people’s lives as a FIRST priority, and not working to change “something so basic about their identity?”
I think it might be.
Of course it is – I invited God into the fabric of my life decades ago, and at no point has God demanded that I stop being gay.
Inviting God into the fabric of someone’s life for the express purpose of not being gay any more is, in fact, focusing on the identity, not on God.
John,
I’d like to encourage you to go ahead and hold the conversation with Andrew. I am a conservative, Evangelical Christian who is gay and 100% supports marriage equality and gay rights. But, I didn’t always. For over 30 years I wrestled and struggled with my attractions for men with my conservative Christian upbringing. I was involved in ex-gay ministries, read tons of books promoted by Focus on the Family and Exodus and believed that it was impossible for a Christian who accepted being gay to actually be happy. A couple of years ago, I read Andrew Marin’s book “Love is an Orientation” and it shattered all of my pre-conceived notions about gay Christians. As a result, I began a journey of self-evaluation that lead me to fially at the age of 46 accept the fact that I am gay (not someone who is actually straight but “struggles” with same sex attractions like I had been taught) and have always been gay. I am now coming out to my family and friends as gay. I credit Andrew and his book as the catalyst for the journey that I am now on.
I’ve met Andrew and have heard him speak about why he does what he does and the approach he takes. Just like I’ve heard you speak and read what you write (I’ve read almost all of your books and read your blog every day) why you do what you do and the approach you take. Believe it or not, I don’t agree 100% with everything both of you say, but I support you both and I am thankful for the impact that both of you have had in my life and the difference you are making in the Church finally accepting LGBTQ people and fellow believers.
Much love,
Michael
This comment reminds me of something that Pope John Paul II said a long time ago. That the Catholic and Protestant churches are the right and left lung of the living body of Christ. I loved the acknowledgement of the role both play and am encouraged by your comment, that this man and John can both be serving different roles in the repair of the damage that the GLBT community.
I’m so glad that you’ve found peace. I tend to align with John, that the interpretation itself that being gay is sinful is so blatantly wrong that it’s difficult for me to entertain any point of view that doesn’t start in that foundational place. But God clearly works in ways I don’t often understand.
*****I began a journey of self-evaluation that lead me to fially at the age of 46 accept the fact that I am gay…******
You know, of course, that the anti-gay “christians” will spin that as proof that you CHOSE to be gay. Never mind. There are some mindsets you cannot change. Live and write and speak your truth to and for those who are uncertain, still struggling and need to know that they are not CHOOSING TO BE GAY, but they are choosing to be who they are and they can do that and still be a good Christian.
We are winning this “culture war”. Even Dobson admitted it a few years ago. It’s over for them and they know it. All their ranting and spinning is the dying gasp of their ignorant prejudice that has lost its rationale.
Soulmentor, he also says “have ALWAYS (caps mine) been gay” so I would not worry about spin. I recall you have been though a lot of pain so I understand where you are coming from though.
Michael,
Thank you for sharing your journey and perspective.
There are a number of well thought out, personal comments on here and I am learning a lot.
I am sorry for all the inner turmoil you have been through.
I hope you can get to a place of full inner peace – you are who you are and
you are FINE – MORE than FINE. If your friends and family give you a hard time, send them here. Let “John and friends” talk to them.
DR, Soulmentor and Kerry, thank you for your comments and encouragement.
This is a strong recommendation.
Michael: I really appreciate and honor you sharing some of your own story here. I too took a long time to accept my sexuality. When I finally accepted AND CELEBRATED who I really am, it was the most freeing experience imaginable. I hope that is/was your experience as well.
Gordon, thank you for commenting. Yes, it has been very freeing. All of the internal turmoil for the past 30+ years has just settled and I am at peace.
Interesting. Most of my gay friends have friended him on FB. I never did. He seemed a bit uninteresting, or something. I haven’t read the book, but it’s in the cue on my kindle. Perhaps I’ll bump it to the top of the list.
Two things. First, as soon as you say that being (a fully functioning sexually active) gay person is not a sin, the whole conversation gets really really complicated. It derails any conversation on just walking in love.
Second, as soon as you talk about sin, you have really not understood grace, bc sin is law based. Again, the conversation gets derailed and becomes about theology.
Oh, and third (!) by NOT coming out and saying that being gay is not a sin, you have participated in subtle discrimination. The act of sweeping under the rug exhibits a lack of total acceptance. Even if done in ignorance (which I doubt – he’s a knowledgeable man), or in a desire to be diplomatic and keep the door to conversation open, it is disingenuous at the least.
Actually, it’s a sin to be human. That’s the point of the Gospel. We are all sinful. It’s also the point of the Gospel that what matters is our own sin, not other people’s. Judge not. It’s too bad so few Christians get it.
It’s not a sin to be “human”. Human beings – designed in God’s Image – are flawed *because* of sin. There is a massive difference between the two.
Are you a calvinist? Only a calvinist would say it’s a sin to be human. God made us human. So using your logic, you’re calling God a sinner by making us in the first place. Total depravity is the most flawed, guilt-tripping theology I’ve ever heard.
Ugh. No, no Calvinist would say that it is a sin to be human. You misunderstand Calvin in the same way that the previous commenter misunderstands sin.
Care to elaborate? After all, your tone implies that you understand everything we reprobates fail so miserably to comprehend. Impart to us your great wisdom!
I simply said he was mistaken about the nature of sin. I know of no Christian faith tradition, either modern or ancient (including Calvinism) that has ever held that being human is itself sinful. I don’t think it is necessary to go off topic, as there are plenty of resources out there that would give both you and Andrew a better idea of various views of sin, from multiple perspectives (including Calvinism.) I don’t care if you agree with Calvinism or not, and I have no interest in arguing about Calvinism on someone else’s blog, I just think one should at least have an accurate idea of it if one is going to talk about it.
And I think it is probably best not to try to read a “tone” into a two sentence comment. Or, I suppose, that if one wants to do so, he or she should probably take a moderate tone themselves.
God made the beasts of the field and other living creatures after their own kind, but humanity was made in God’s own image. This is what precludes the notion that humanity is inherently sinful, along with the teaching of the true humanity of Jesus. But, nitpickingly, we all have fallen from grace. This, of course, was the intention of the commenter. This distinction is fairly subtle (like the serpent beast of the field) and causes a lot of intellectual grief for the various faith traditions. DR is catholic and believes in the perfectibility of grace. Lutherans do not seem to, and Calvinists hold a definitely darker view. My own view has shifted with time. I recall that having walked with God, Enoch was seen no more, because God had taken him away.
Maybe few people would outright say it, but it’s really at the core of most Christian sects. Humans are born sick, wretched without any hope of ever being good on their own. It doesn’t matter what good they do. Belief is either all that counts or a substantial part of it. Most things that make us human and many of our core characteristics (both good and bad) are labeled as sinful. Humanity itself is a condition that needs to be endured and overcome, because the only hope lies in the afterlife.
Well, what people think they understand wasn’t what I was commenting on, rather what Christian doctrine actually says in the creeds and confessions of traditional Christian denominations.
Actually I’ve heard a great many people outright say such nonsense — there’s even a hymn, “This world is not my own, I’m just a-passin’ through.” Doesn’t mean they’re correctly espousing the views of traditional Christian doctrine. For instance, the notion that good works are unimportant isn’t part of any traditional Christian doctrine with which I’m familiar.
But again, this is all off topic and not particularly important anyway. After all, no one has ever been convinced of anything based on a blog comment, eh?
For 1900 years people have quarreled and killed each other over what is correct Christian doctrine. During that time they have splintered into over 18000 different sects, each of whom considered only themselves to be the One True Church. If you think you understand all of them and have the perfect insight, there are thousands of people out there who will call you a heretic for it.
Lol. Well, it wouldn’t be the first time.
I am incredibly grateful to be free from such belief, that “humans are born sick, wretched without any hope of ever being good on their own.”
hmm.
Here I am agreeing with you again, Mindy! I don’t understand how people can attract followers and build churches and entire denominations with this doctrine, but they do.
John, I’m going to have to disagree with you on this one just a bit. I think Andrew Marin does a great job bridging the gap between Christians like us (gay’s perfectly okay) and those Christians who have always believed it’s a sin but also think it’s a sin to treat people badly. You and I both know that even upholding the belief that it’s a sin to be gay (or act gay or whatever they say) hurts people in big ways. We see that all around us. There’s evidence of that belief system catapulting others within the group to the full-fledged bullying and other sick crazy stuff. But Andrew’s right in saying that conversations have to happen. No one changes their opinion if we come at them saying they have to jump the whole way and affirm that we’re right and they’re wrong.
Right now, as you know, I’m having weekly conversations with my adopted mom who still isn’t convinced that acting on being gay isn’t a sin. She admits she’s not sure. She thinks the Bible says it’s a sin. But she also recognizes the time, study, and prayer that went into my concluding it’s not a sin. She never says I’m not a Christian or going to hell. She trusts my knowledge and wisdom. The conversations are real. They’re full of love and respect. Had I held my ground and said I wouldn’t discuss it with her unless she agreed with me, then all of this would be lost. Our relationship would be lost. I don’t think that’s what we need.
So, personally, I’d urge you to have that full conversation with Andrew. Maybe what makes his ministry work is that he doesn’t focus on whether it’s a sin or not. Maybe people need to come to their beliefs a little on their own with just someone like him holding their hand. He has done good work letting LGBT people in Chicago know that they’re not excluded from God’s love. That in itself would be reason enough for me to talk to him.
But I have seen people change their opinions when asked to jump the whole way. It does happen.
And I think it’s dangerous to offer people a means to feel good about themselves while still practicing discrimination. Imagine talking to a racist who refused to come right out and say that black people are not inferior. He wants to hold the position that they ARE inferior, but it’s still wrong to discriminate against them. They should be treated with the kindness suited to inferiors… something like the protection offered to one’s own children, whom one loves. Not, of course, allowed to use the same bathroom or go to the same schools, but loved and cared for as being made in the image of God.
Bleah, right? I mean, that sounds pretty sick today. But it’s exactly what used to pass for liberal in the South. I’ve heard older relatives of mine say pretty much exactly those words and pat themselves on the back for being so forward-thinking.
I see what you’re saying, Allie. But the difference between racism and believing homosexuality is wrong (NOT homophobia) is that while one can easily prove that race is genetic and out of one’s control, being gay is not something that can be determined at birth. So it’s easier for well-meaning people to see homosexuality as an aberration (which, of course it isn’t). They aren’t bad people. They aren’t oppressive. I’m not talking about people who openly label homosexuality as unequivocally sinful. I’m talking about people who are on the fence, like Brian McLaren and Andrew Marin. They aren’t evil, greedy bastards like some of the angry commenters here have expressed. They’re still unsure, as I see it. I don’t see them as responsible for bullying and teen suicides. The ones responsible for that are the ones that won’t let go of viewing homosexuality as sinful, and saying so. This isn’t black and white for them, because homosexuality has been condemned for so long, of course people are still.struggling with it. It isn’t fair to condemn people like McLaren and Marin and call them greedy cowards. And as for jumping through the hoop, it works for SOME people. It took me learning gradually, not instantly. People learn at different rates. Berating them for not changing their minds instantly is unreasonable. It would be nice if it worked, but it doesn’t.
That race is out of one’s control didn’t prevent racism from being the norm for centuries.
We half agree, anyway. I agree that it’s not helpful or even truthful to say that someone who is simply having trouble moving past the way the overwhelming majority of people have interpreted the Bible until very recently is a monster. But I think it’s equally important not to say that such a person is right. It’s no sin to be gay. Not saying that, in Marin’s position, is the same as saying it IS a sin to be gay. And that’s bad.
It’s bad not just because of the effects it has on gay people, but because it’s a symptom of a real problem in the believer’s understanding of what sin is. Sin isn’t just some vague stupid laws handed down by Skydaddy who will send you to bed without supper if you don’t mind him. Things that are sinful are wrong, in a consistent way, which can be understood using your brain, following principles which are clearly stated in the Bible and make sense. Understanding what sin is gives you the keys to the Kingdom, and makes you a child of God, not a slave of the law. And if you believe being gay is sin, you clearly don’t understand what sin is.
I agree Melody, and glad to hear of such conversations, Allie. Those are powerful moments.
I’m kind of with Leslie on this one. It took me about a year to work through the idea that homosexuality was not a sin and if someone had come to me with the same zeal that they hate from the religious right saying “BELIEVE IT’S NOT A SIN YOU IDIOT! SAY IT!” (not that that’s what John did), I would’ve retreated. Everyone’s unique. I’m not defending Marin–just saying he’s probably scared like I was. Personally, I just kept my thoughts to myself, read John’s blog, continued to grow my relationships with my LGBT friends and continued to talk with God about it.
I’m with you, Leslie. I feel like SO many issues are framed as false dichotomies, with people polarized on one side or another. Someone who can create a stepping stone from one end of the spectrum to the other has the ability to play a positive role, in my opinion, even if I don’t agree with them. This is especially true with an issue such as LGBTQ rights, where many of the people on the “other side” hold their positions out of fear, ignorance, discomfort, etc. If someone is able to break down those walls by speaking their language and not scaring them off, and bring them into open and honest conversation with LGBTQ folks and allies, then that, to me, is a step in the right direction.
Jessica, I like your stepping stone analogy. I would absolutely love if people like Marin or my mom could just take the jump and end up on the last stepping stone where I am, but I’m not going to judge them for being somewhere in the middle either. The conversations with my mom show me very clearly that she wants to do right, she wants to be completely loving as Jesus taught. It’s hard to get past what you’ve believed all your life and your parents and grandparents believed.
I’ll accept people in the middle. I draw the line at accepting people who vocally tell me and others that we’re sinning by being who God made us to be. Those are the people that actively hurt people. Yes, the people in the middle hurt people. I’ve been hurt. But I try to look at the intentions. That’s impossible to do without a relationship filled with conversations and respect. I also know that those people way back there at the first stepping stone (those who say being gay is an abomination and should be thrown in a fenced in place, etc) are never going to listen to me or anyone else on this side of the path. They *might* listen to someone like Marin though.
Leslie
What has Marin said or written that makes you think he is on the fence? If he is, I can respect that and wholly agree with you. Perhaps I’m too skeptical, but I don’t think that’s what’s going on here. If it is, I think he would be explicit that he’s still trying to personally work through the issue. My guess is that he’s being coy at the expense of people who are gay.
Ford,
I don’t think Marin is on the fence. I think he very purposely lives in the middle so as to stay in conversation with as many people as possible. Perhaps his motives are not pure and he is profit-driven, as many people seem to think. But do I still think God can use him to change people’s hearts and minds? Absolutely. We may be uncomfortable with his noncommital stance, but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t have an important role to play in drawing people who are not on the fence but in the camp of hatred, ignorance, fear, etc., to be farther down the spectrum toward love and acceptance. I can easily imagine people who find it easier to go from hatred to Andrew Marin’s work to John Shore’s work than to make the leap from hatred to John Shore’s work. And if that’s the case, then I’m fine with him doing what he needs to do to remain in that stepping-stone position.
This. This. This.
and it’s an extremely tough role, because both sides will damn him for “not answering the question.”
thanks Jessica.
Lawrence, you’re exactly right. Although being in the middle is sometimes the perfect place to be in order to effect change, those on both ends can and often do damn him. We see that here in a sense. (Though I don’t see it as “damning” per se, more like, encouraging Marin to come all the way over to the side of truth.)
I think those of us on this end of the spectrum who believe God fully loves and accepts all people need to be careful to still love and accept all people wherever they are on their journey. We don’t have to agree with them or like what they believe, but if we alienate them we’ll never have the chance to converse.
Yes! Jessica answered Ford exactly how I would have had I, umm, had more coffee. Thank you.
I’m glad I’ll now have a resource to point people to when they start talking about Marin. LGBT people are so thirsty for non-condemnation from Christians that we’re often willing to overlook the most important things they often don’t say.
“Context” is always very important to people like this but Christians who are trying to navigate the deep and shallow ends by using a lot of earnest Christian-ese. I’d like to translate:
“I want to make sure you understand that I would be *devastated* if I discovered that a belief I had actually *damaged* someone who was gay or lesbian! It’s not my intent to hurt *anybody*. All I’m doing is trying to follow the Word of God. What those of you who find fault with me don’t seem to understand is that I am a *victim* of the interpretation I am choosing to both accept and apply to the GLBT community. It’s just what (I am choosing to believe) the Word of God says.
So you’re not mad at *me* (even though I forgive you for hurting my feelings). You’re mad at GOD. I have absolutely nothing to do with anyone being hurt and the fact that you won’t allow me to have a direct dialogue with you where I can say all of this above using a million different distancing words that sound loving is in fact, a sign that you are afraid of the dialogue. So me and all of my gay friends (the 1-2 I can say that I know something personal about though yikes, I don’t get too close).
I’ll pray for you as I’m over here in my wealthy, I can marry and enjoy the spiritual, social and economic benefits of being married status corner being so misunderstood.”
Love it! This captures perfectly the loving, concerned, sometimes teary faces of some of those who have rejected me.
Me too, Mindy. What’s weird in my life is that some members of my family actually accuse ME of rejecting THEM. How they do those mental gymnastics is a mystery to me. But, if you believe that being gay is a sin AND a choice (not sure which comes first), then you are rejecting me. If that’s your starting point, how can we have an honest, straightforward and productive conversation? I came out to my family more than 20 years ago. I have recently decided that I can no longer tolerate them supporting and voting for people who absolutely hate me. They have had more than enough time to learn and grow and they just refuse to do it. So, I completely understand why John Shore has a qualifier in his willingness to engage in a dialog with Mr. Marin.
Thanks for sharing Gordon. Those insights are helpful for me.
20 years is a long time to wait, Gordon… I’m so sorry. My family has been pretty awesome, but my church family was not. I fell in love there, with someone who was in leadership. We told them right away. They pulled us out of all service (oh, we could have cleaned the toilets, or maybe worked the food pantry, but no music, no small groups, no attending classes) and they pleaded with us over six grueling months to change our minds. I often wondered — if I had been able to stay in community there, would my presence have changed some hearts? I simply could not do it though. It hurt too much. And it likely would have ruined my new relationship. (which, today, is healthy and vibrant and joyful!)
I love what Lymis has articulated several times in the comments here — we are being asked to set aside a piece of who we are, to set aside our integrity, to live in split reality. That’s not the same compromise at all as the one we are asking of those who believe gay sex is sin. We want them to be clear about where they stand. We have the right to that much protection from the wounds they can inflict on us, while claiming to love us.
Is Andrew Marin (and McLaren, and for that matter, one of my former pastors who is starting another church, which chooses “welcoming” over “affirming…) doing some good by intentionally straddling the fence? Maybe. I get it. I do. But I also carry my own wounds, wounds opened by people who have been given a license to pass judgment on me by some preacher or christian or book who are repeating what they’ve been told about what the bible means and about what God thinks about homosexuality.
(Sidenote: I believe that it’s easy for those who are afraid of their own sexuality–hetero or homo or bi or whatever–to adopt a sexually repressive, conservative belief, but that’s for a whole ‘nother discussion!)
Bottom line, I can’t help but believe that IF EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO ISN’T SURE WHAT GOD THINKS ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY SAID SO, the tide would turn a whole lot faster. It’s almost like we’re waiting for that “Yop” to break through to the monkeys who are chanting “boil that dustspeck!”. (Do you remember how quickly those monkeys stood down, how their anger melted?)
I am exceedingly grateful for John Shore, for Jay Bakker, for all straight allies. I am wary of Andrew Marin, and the Campolos, and all those who are not clear about where they stand.
And I am fierce about my right to choose the relationships I will invest my heart and time and love in.
“And I am fierce about my right to choose the relationships I will invest my heart and time and love in.” Beautiful! I think I’ll make that into a poster and put it on my wall.
I think some people just can’t understand why the answer to the simple question, “Do you believe being gay is a sin?”, is so important. For people who have known me my entire life to say they love me and believe I chose to be gay and therefore sinful is beyond offensive. It’s unforgiveable.
Yes, 20 years is long enough. I actually sent John’s book “Unfair” to my two brothers. Big brother number one wrote and told me he was offended and refused to read it. Poor baby. Big brother number two has a flair for the dramatic. He shredded the book and sent it back to me. Screw ‘em! I’m done.
he *shredded* it?!?!? Again, I’m so sorry.
How is that behavior in any way life-giving? And these are usually the same people who compare us to murderers and adulterers and drug addicts and muslims. (That last comparison — a real one that I’ve been told more than once — gives a little more insight into the insular, arrogant, arbritrary, imperious nature of their belief.)
My partner finally severed ties with some family members. She has never been so free and emotionally healthy. I wish the same for you!
heck, i had to do that and i’m straight.
and hee!!!
me too. and friends.
Thanks, Mindy. This severing process has been very interesting. And, it’s relatively easy because I live about 3,000 miles from my brothers. They probably won’t even notice unless I decide to tell them I’m out of their lives! But, the important thing for me has been severing the connection in my own mind. I find it interesting that I have had a couple of dreams with brother number two in them over the past couple of weeks. So, my subconscious mind is obviously chewing on this a bit. But I am very certain I have done the right thing for me, and I take great comfort in that. I found that very freeing as well.
some families leave voices inside your head that rival any hallucinations (i think?). it’s important to get those out, too… or at least to be able to get a word in edgewise with our own voices.
i hope his shredder broke. if not, JOHN SHORE: PLEASE MAKE THICKER BOOKS.
hee!!
I hope so too, n. Brother number two is a drama queen! LOL.
Gordon and Mindy – thank you for being so vulnerable here at JohnShore.com… Though I’m straight, your words are healing for me and I’m sure many others… thank you.
At best he’s unaware/ignorant (clouded by narcissism and mis-guided “passion”), at worst, he’s a fraud. What he does seem to be good at is raising money (and staying on message) for his namesake foundation.
I’ve heard audio of him talking to evangelical adults, how he can claim to be an ally is beyond me. If you haven’t heard it, I’ll try to find it and post the url.
I’d go with the “at best.” His foundation is named after himself, after all… he does seem genuine…ly misguided
I always called a spade a shovel, myself.
Hey! Tony Campolo could do the same thing!!
Not while the dog-and-pony show of him and his wife is still generating the income it is.
Like.
Ric Booth! Love.
Thank you for calling a spade a spade.
I’m still waiting for conservative leaders who are demonizing the gays as the worst of sins to explain why Leviticus 11:12 doesn’t apply?
I’ll make some tea while we wait.
Better make a vat of it… think it’s going to be a long wait.
I’ll make cookies to go with. You can stay for lunch, too.
1 2 3 »