Comments on Thinking through Christianity: Interview with a gay Christian

2012-01-24T16:20:42.989-06:00

This comment has been removed by the author.

Hah, totally did not look at the author's name...

2012-01-24T16:10:09.619-06:00

Hah, totally did not look at the author's name.

If anyone takes offense to my post or is frustrated by it, I do not see how. I was "thinking through Christianity" just as the name of the blog says. ;)

I am not taking a black and white stance on this and if anyone thinks that way then there is a communication breakdown.

I do like the comments made. Great information and thoughts.

Another helpful distinction/reminder.

2012-01-18T11:12:27.699-06:00

Another helpful distinction/reminder.

Another crucial, under-discussed topic is the dist...

2012-01-18T10:43:37.218-06:00

Another crucial, under-discussed topic is the distinction between homosexual desires and homosexual acts. Since the word "homosexual" is often used to denote either a person with the desires or a person who commits the acts, there is a lot of confusion.

If the act as sinful, that does not necessarily mean that the desire is also sinful; the desire could be just fine, or it could be unnatural but not sinful, or it could really be sinful. The mere fact of the act's being sinful just doesn't tell us much about the desire.

For that matter, if the desire is ok, that doesn't tell us that the act is ok.

Furthermore, if the desire is hard to eliminate, or if the desire is somehow coded by a person's DNA, that doesn't mean the act is ok. A heterosexual man may have a genetic disposition to desire adultery, but that doesn't make it ok. A desire's being ok, hard to eliminate, or genetically coded just doesn't tell us much about the act.

The general point is: Be careful what you say, choose your words carefully, and define your terms!

PS. I'm currently reading Washed and Waitin...

2012-01-17T18:06:11.577-06:00
PS. I'm currently reading Washed and Waiting (the book Justin refers to which affirms gay Christian celibacy): I highly recommend it. It's a vital part of what's missing in our current Christian conversations about homosexuality.

(You can get a digital copy on Amazon right now for like $3.)

Well said, Mark. Christine, thanks for propelling ...

2012-01-17T18:00:43.888-06:00
Well said, Mark. Christine, thanks for propelling this conversation. It is indeed an important one, and one which is, as Adam points out, entirely too black and white in too many Christian circles.

I'm glad Mark brings up hermeneutics (methods of [biblical] interpretation). It's a process that isn't black and white, which is why many issues aren't either.

One of the best books I've read on how we interpret what the Old and New Testaments say about this issue is William Webb's Slaves, Women & Homosexuals. I can't recommend it enough. It is very helpful as we try to answer the question Justin brings up: Why do we ignore NT instructions about women and makeup and hold to statements in the same epistles about homosexuality? It seems arbitrary which NT (and OT) passages we decide are culturally bound and which are "universal." How can we know?

Slaves, Women & Homosexuality, which is primarily about the "woman problem" not the "gay issue," affirms that NT condemnation of homosexuality is not a culturally bound issue as is women in hats. And it does so in a way that is respectfully empathetic. I appreciate that.

Respect and empathy are two essential qualities often neglected by believers when it comes to this conversation. It's a failure of creative-redemptive imagination.

I'm really thankful for what Justin says about "ex-gay" ministries that try to "cure" homosexuality. While there may be some who switch teams, as the saying goes, most cannot. And we are naive to believe they will. I mean really. As if I could just pray hard enough to no longer struggle with pride or envy or... Justin's right [for the most part] it just doesn't work that way.

As Christians, we need to get real about this and take an honest look at what this means.

The gentleman says, "In Leviticus 18-20, the ...

2012-01-17T08:39:06.909-06:00
The gentleman says, "In Leviticus 18-20, the death penalty is prescribed for a man who 'lies with a man as with a woman.' This is part of a set of rules given by God to Moses to keep the Israelites set apart. Some of the rules we Christians still follow today; others we don't."

I think there is a lot of confusion on this issue, and understandably so. The problem is that we're not talking about one, but two, differences between Old Testament religion and New Testament religion. It's easy to get them mixed up, as I think this gentleman has.

The first difference is that a number of the Israelites' outward signs of being a people set apart for God are not required for Christians, circumcision in particular (on which see Galatians).

But the moral standards for a holy community, one with hearts that are circumcised with the love of God and neighbor, do not change. A number of the Old Testament moral prescriptions remain.

I think the prescription against homosexual acts is included in this category along with the prescription against having sex with your father's wife.

The second difference between Old and New Testament religion concerns these moral prescriptions. That difference is not that the standards have changed, but that the means of enforcing them have changed. The tools for building a holy community are different, and no longer include the sword.

As an example, see how the death penalty is also prescribed in Leviticus for having sex with your father's wife; but Paul tells the Corinthian church to use different means of expelling such immorality from the community of them that are learning to love God and neighbor as they ought. He says to remove the offender from the fellowship of believers, to expel him from church membership.

For the record, I'm not trying to espouse a pa...

2012-01-16T18:37:45.269-06:00
For the record, I'm not trying to espouse a particular view, but, as the name of this website implies, to get us "thinking through" the issues in a well-rounded way.

I didn't write this; this is my wife's pos...

2012-01-16T15:28:03.751-06:00
I didn't write this; this is my wife's post (her name's at the top).

Homosexuality is a more complex issue than the church has usually allowed; we're trying to open that discussion up, around here.

Howdy, Adam. I read a little and checked out his ...

2012-01-16T15:20:07.252-06:00
Howdy, Adam.

I read a little and checked out his blog; specifically I took an interest in his "The Great Debate: Justin's View" post.

Please be careful about taking Justin's views to heart. We can taint our walk by being influenced by others instead of being influenced by God.

I disagree with one part and agree with another.

I agree that God loves homosexuals as much as heterosexuals. Sin is sin is sin; God does not tier our sin, we do. No man will relinquish all his sins before death, for we are wicked hearts seeking our Savior.

I disagree that God supports gay marriages, regardless of sex in the marriage. Justin's arguments for stopping counter-arguments are not thorough enough.

In just one reference he has failed to take the entire book and culture into consideration. Justin says, "Even more shocking, a master could buy wives for his male slaves and then keep the wife and kids for himself after setting the slave free (Exodus 21:2-4)".

This argument does not stand as per the reasons I listed above. These women and kids kept were not Hebrews and were slaves of the master thus required to stay with the master if he wished. The freed Hebrew male slave could choose to stay with his family if he so desired.

If Justin continues to read through studies of the bible that touch on these passages, he will eventually find help with the greater picture of context.

Homosexuality is not a cultural "thing" that did not exist in that day, nor has He ever accepted it. Jesus touches on the topic of homosexuality and emotional scaring making marriage with the same sex or even anyone impossible. His words found in Mt 19:12.