One of the reasons I suck at writing new content regularly is because I don’t check tags anymore now that they’re hidden. So I don’t see #gaychristian posts and don’t get inspired. Does that make me lazy? (I even have a post I want to write, but I haven’t made the time to do it. Plus I have like 40 drafts…) Sorry.
“…Christians are now divided over two different interpretations of the same verses. So how do we know who is right? Ultimately, we don’t and so that’s why I have redirected my focus to that little thing I mentioned earlier—mypersonal relationship with God. This is where I seek answers outside of what is black and white. As I searched for a response to my questions, I was very deliberate about being as open with God as possible. Based on that very open dialogue, I formed my conclusions. Are they right? Maybe. Or maybe they’re not. But I know that God is just as eager to communicate with me as I am with Him and that if at any given moment He has something to say, He will make Himself heard.”
Nailed it. Go read the whole thing…
Church, I got to go to the Macklemore concert on Friday night. If you want to hear about how that went, ask me, seriously, I want to talk about it until I die. The whole thing was great; but the be…This is one of the most powerful and true things I have read in a long time. Take a look, and consider what it says.
no… this is really good. please read it. thanks Dom for sharing.
(via dominictapia)
So I just shared on Facebook that post about Homophobia in France. My friend Brad wrote a comment:
There are millions of topics in the world, and you seem to obsess primarily over this one (maybe in addition to a couple of others). Is there a reason for that?
I deleted his comment. And Facebook gave me the opportunity to give him feedback (how neat!) Here’s my message to him.
Homophobia —- Words of Past
I want your help. See, I’ve had a hard time finding a website or a video or an article that has collected a lot of the crazy things people have said about homosexuality… So, comment here. Submit something to me. Or, if you know of a resource that has listed a lot of the anti-gay hate spewed from people’s mouths, share that here. Will you help?
closetedgaychristian answered your question: Homophobia —- Words of Past
I already forgave and forgot.
I don’t see that as being kind. or helpful. Christians need to hear where their current position came from. They think it’s harmless. They think that their opinion is about keeping what’s of God pure. BUT, what they need to see is how this anti-equality position is fully rooted in hate and persecution.
I want your help. See, I’ve had a hard time finding a website or a video or an article that has collected a lot of the crazy things people have said about homosexuality… So, comment here. Submit something to me. Or, if you know of a resource that has listed a lot of the anti-gay hate spewed from people’s mouths, share that here. Will you help?
A long while ago, someone asked me a question that I want to take a look at with you all.
Are the people that you’re around unhealthy for you?
A lot of gay people grow up in Christian homes. (or grow up around people who are generally hostile to homosexuality.) And if people are hostile to such a core nature or ourselves, is it really good for us to be around them? It’s a pretty compelling question, since I wrote a while back that helping our friends come to terms with homosexuality is supremely important. I said that, “our friendships will be stronger, and they will have the knowledge, and empathy, and passion to be my advocate.” I believe that if we persist, we could have “an army of allies who are quick to say, ‘I want to be your friend”’ to the outcast, and the broken, and the desperate.”
Now, though, I don’t think I know enough about psychology to answer this “is it healthy” question for my own self. And I don’t think I know enough about social psychology and sociology that allows me to definitively maintain my conviction that gay people must persist in their relationships for the betterment of the LGBT community.
Because what happens when those friends are doing more harm to you than good to you? Or, what happens when those friends are doing more harm to you than the good you are doing them? And, how do you know when it’s gotten to the point that you have to leave the friendship for your own sake—your own sanity or emotional well-being…. or safety? Where do we draw the line? One line for all people, or everyone having a different line? And does that make the person who take up more burden better than the person who gave up the friendships to save his emotional well-being?
What if it’s not just our Christian friends? What if the hostility comes from our family? Do we abandon them for our own sake?
I live in a pretty hostile environment. To be specific to what it feels like, the environments I am in seem to “put up with me.” No, they don’t use slurs. They don’t talk often about how it’s a sin, even though that’s the way they feel. They don’t often make gay jokes. My church, while a megachurch that tends to be somewhat “seeker-friendly,” in that there’s no fire and brimstone talk, and there’s certainly no hateful speech going on. But they certainly are open about homosexuality being sin and that same-sex marriage is a bad thing.
Whether family, extended family, friends, fraternity brothers, or volunteer organizations I’m a part of, I definitely don’t feel very comfortable being gay around them. I’d call that… suffocating, but for the sake of the term I’ve been using, I think we could feel pretty comfortable calling it hostile.
SO, here’s where I’m at. I’ve stopped going to my church, basically. I avoid my family. The only people I truly seek out are those who I know love me for me… and those who I need to interact with where I know my sexuality isn’t bothersome to them at all, that my sexuality is entirely peripheral to our friendship, even if they’re not 100% convinced same-sex marriage is a good thing.
Am I in the middle ground? I’ve not quite withdrawn, because I hate the idea of withdrawing. And I’m not quite persevering, am I? I’m avoiding the conflict and the emotional wreckage. So what is this exactly? Is this “in the world but not of the world”? Or is it “lukewarm”?
To be honest, I’m not quite sure how I feel about where I’m at. Nor do I know how I feel about whether one should withdraw or persevere. I know where I’m at, I keep asking, “is the grass really greener on that side? Is the picture really that much more beautiful when I’m surrounded by affirming people at the cost of possibly leaving my church or friends or family?” And I don’t know the answer. I wish I did.
Al Mohler called this, “Moral McCarthyism”.
Russell Moore (Dean of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) said this is a “state church”.
What these Christian leaders want to say is, “Why can’t I believe my Bible?”
What the rest of America is saying is, “Why do you hate homosexuality so much?”
What LGBT activists are saying is, “You cannot believe that and be welcome here.”
What they’re really saying is, “your beliefs don’t actually make sense morally,” but they just skipped that sentence and went straight to anger.
Let me provide one word of caution, to both sides. Do not settle for a trite statement or some cliche. This is far from simple. This is simply a sad moment where no one wins.
So I am sick and feeling sorry for myself and feel like I should go to bed but I also want to get these thoughts down otherwise I will never sleep. Normally this is what the notepad in my drawer is for, but that would require turning on the light. To Tumblr it is.
Essentially, this is about accepting and affirming LGBT people in Christian churches - particularly Evangelical Christian churches, which are the sort I identify with strongest. I am also part of the LGBT community, which is important for this conversation.
Ask most Evangelical church leaders if they think same-sex sexual practice is ok (even within a loving, monogamous relationship) and they will say no. Even fewer will tell you that it’s part of the best way God wants you to live your life.
I’m not saying I know the answer. What I am saying is this: throughout church history, marginalisation of LGBT people has gone ahead without question. They were sinners, and their presence was a threat to a healthy Christian community. But the capital-C Church has never operated in a wider cultural context that says monogamous, same-sex relationships are acceptable. Basically, this is a question we have never had to ask ourselves or ask God.
Today, some serious questions are being asked about the Biblical basis for the non-acceptance of LGBT people and their relationships. Actually, this has been going on since at least the 70s. Do the references to homosexual acts in Paul’s letters to the Romans, the Corinthians and to Timothy apply to monogamous same-sex couples or only to the practices of pederasty and idol worship? And are we sure the Law found in the Hebrew scriptures concerning homosexuality still applies to Christians under the new covenant? These questions have not been properly engaged with in the communities which I have been part of in the past and I do not see them being properly engaged with in many other Christian faith-communities elsewhere.
Using the information I have right now I am doing my best to live my life in a way that honours myself and honours God. My decisions are my responsibility and I do not make them lightly. Like I said, I can’t look you in the eye and tell you there’s no chance I’m wrong, but I can tell you that if there’s a chance we’ve been wrong through the past - through our entire history of being Christ-in-the-world - then that is something we need to take very seriously. For example, are we sure LGBT people aren’t covered by “What I have called clean, do not call unclean” and the rest of Acts 10:9-48 concerning the observance of Jewish purity codes?
Because if they are exempt, we have not only failed to stand beside a vulnerable group, we have actively victimised them.
Now that the Church is facing these questions I’m calling everyone involved to get off their high horses and actively work towards finding common ground. If we are taking these questions seriously then our actions need to show it: actively praying, actively studying, actively dialoguing. And in the meantime we need to accept LGBT people as active participants in our communities so that they do not remain voiceless during this process.
I’m not imagining it to be an easy open-and-shut case, with one ‘side’ suddenly capitulating to the other; I know this will be a long process of reconciliation which requires Christ-like quantities of grace and humility from every corner. I’m sick of straight people in churches talking round-and-round with each other about LGBT people. I want to see life lived out alongside each other, whether or not we disagree. I’m sure this is the only possible way forward without schism, and I want to see it happen in my communities here and at home, today.
What he said. I literally don’t think I could add anything.
A male student sits down after walking campus in high heels to raise money for gender-violence awareness.
One of the things I think the gay community needs is for straight people to realize that not only have they not walked a mile in our shoes but it’s impossible to walk a mile in our shoes. Sure, you could pretend to be gay and come out like one man did for an entire year. But nothing will compare. Nothing compares to the feeling like all you do is miss out on what the rest of your friends get to experience. You first crush in grade school, giving a Valentine to someone your freshman year, a couples skate, even if she isn’t your girlfriend. Whatever it is. Life is different. Fully altered. But even a mile in my shoes would probably teach you enough to realize that love, equality, and allowing same-sex marriage is more important than being a champion of doctrine you don’t really understand.
Of my friends who I more or less only know through church or campus ministries, I have come out to about 5 or so of the closest of them. They are pretty great about it. I’ve come out to friends at my campus ministry, and I came out to the college minister at the church I went to while I was at school.
There’s no way I could be out and miserable, especially when I remember what it was to be in the closet and miserable. I take a very educational perspective on coming out and homosexuality. And it takes a LOT to hurt my feelings. I will be out in my church because I want to advocate for change. Not “believe what I believe—homosexuality is not a sin,” but “let’s welcome them here.” When the focus is on behaving like Christ and not on “which is right?” I think everything changes.
I am out to enough people that to out me at church would be a weird thing and an even weirder undertaking. I go to a church of about 20,000, and our college/young adult ministry is about 200 or so. My small group (all the same age) is about 30. When I come out, I will do so carefully, with every word being about the story and about God’s redemptive plan as I have seen it so far and as I have experienced it. When I tell people I’m gay, I take about an hour or two to talk about everything. That is crucial, I think, for preventing slanderous talk about my sexuality. Sure, they may talk about it, but at least (I hope) the way I’m going about it prevents rumors and false assumptions.
I would encourage you not to limit yourself to being a martyrous example to young people who go through the same thing you do. I would encourage you to facilitate education to those who see things differently from you, and to propose that more important than the sin (which has been spoken for) is the admonishment Christ has given us to be fully hospitable and generous in our patience and (most crucially) to view our own knowledge as folly, even though we may so firmly believe it is of God. Then, we may by grace become like children, eager to see Him for what he would be doing instead of administering the Christian dogma—what the church believes God has obliged them to do as carriers of the gospel.
This post has been in my drafts for… maybe as long as a year, I don’t know. But I decided that I don’t know how to do anything with it… and that every word after “to facilitate education” in the last paragraph is probably the coolest thing I’ve written. It’s difficult for me to write it “accusatively” though, even if it does become easier to understand what I mean, that is:
“…The admonishment that Christ has given you, Church, to be fully hospitable and generous in your patience and to view your own knowledge as folly, even though you may so firmly believe it is of God. Then, you may by grace become like children, eager to see Him for what he would be doing instead of administering your Christian dogma—which you believe God has obliged you to do as carriers of the gospel.
Conversations with conservative Christians about homosexuality inevitably turn to how Christians tend to respond to homosexuality more harshly than they respond to other sins, and there’s an argument that often comes up that rather baffles me. It goes something like this:
“Yes, Christians…
You know how I said I might as well automatically reblog everything OMO posts? Well, I would like to take this one in a different direction, and we’ll see how it turns out.
I think conversations tend to sound a bit more like this:
“Yes, we Christians are more vocal about homosexuality than other sins, and we may hold people to a higher standard with regards to sexual sins than we do with other kinds of sin. But that’s because there’s a growing movement within secular media especially, where people are trying to change the moral standard for sexual activity and for sexual immorality. We see that change in homosexuality more than we’ve ever seen it in the past. It is dangerous to re-write the moral law that God has put into place to protect us. We want to speak out about God’s truths, publicly calling something sinful if it is in fact sinful. It is our duty to speak this truth, to have a firm position on sin issues.”
See, the paragraph OMO wrote allows him to put light on the differences between the way the church responds to gossip versus homosexuality. Well, it’s easy to say, “we’re an imperfect church full of imperfect people.” I don’t think his extending argument (that holding the same expectations fiercely across all sins) is realistic, nor would I expect it to be particularly revealing. I do agree with him, though. He’s entirely, exactly correct. 1000%. I just don’t think people are willing to think that way.
But here’s how I react to this “response to sin.”
It is our duty to protect God’s moral code, especially within our church community. And to a certain extent, we must delicately serve as the moral compass for our society. As we have become more and more irrelevant, people have unknowingly said in their hearts, “the church is wrong.”
Why do people rebel against God’s moral law if it should so obviously be the best choice for us? I think it’s because the church has done a bad job explaining why sin is sin.
So let’s reexamine. If people have said in their hearts, “the church is wrong” and have instead chosen gossip or cohabitation or gluttony, the church has failed to show for people the wrongness of sin. The church has taken the lazy approach of reciting words instead of letting them words alter our lives. The side effect of that sounds like, “It’s sin because God said it was sin.”
We Christians are dutiful. We are trumpeting the messages of a Sovereign God without letting them destroy the darkness in our hearts.
So let’s not ask Christians for fidelity to words that they don’t understand.
Let’s ask them to understand the words. And when they understand them, they may again speak.
Well, our tiny, pathetic brains aren’t too good at understanding the things of God. So let’s just rely on the Spirit. Let us rely on the fruit of our Christian brothers and sisters. Let us rely on love.
Christians’ fidelity to misunderstood scripture is dangerous. Fidelity to misinterpreted words of God has caused forced conversion, legalism, crusades, and racism. Even Satan used Scripture against Jesus to tempt him.
So, let’s get technical. Prooftexting - a) When a person has already decided what the Bible teaches on a particular topic and then searches the Scriptures for verses that seem to back up his belief. b) When a person has gathered enough verses that appear to back up his position, he stops searching.
Is it possible we’ve done that here?
The answer MUST be yes. It is required to be.
THEREFORE, the response of the church must be reasoned. We should encourage fidelity to the all-encompassing messages of God and through those lenses re-examine scripture. We should allow the fiercely strong words of those who oppose the church’s position on same-sex marriage to penetrate our hearts. And, when we finally accept these points one by one, ask, “Is there fruit?”
The church must admit into its heart all evidence, including those exhibits that support same-sex marriage and the “not-sin-status” of homosexuality… and test them.
Then, and only then, will we begin to understand the nature of God’s design for morality. Because we have examined it and tested it. We have taken in and examined the words of non-Christians who are mocking our legalism, our moral code. And we have learned. We have learned why God has set for us things that are right and things that a wrong. And, having learned why God calls something sin, we more radically live in ways that show honest devotion to holiness. Because we understand how sin harms.
Christians are getting better at talking about sexuality, and I want to help us continue thoughtfully framing our discussions to be as productive and meaningful as possible. For that reason, I’ve written New Year’s resolutions for conservative Christians—since those are the circles in which I mostly run—related to the questions we ask about sexuality. For Part I, I want to examine questions I’ve encountered that are no longer useful and offer suggestions for alternative questions that address more directly what we’re actually trying to discern together. As a friend pointed out, some of these questions I’m criticizing are unavoidable for LGBT individuals and their friends/relatives on a personal level as they seek to understand themselves and understand God throughout their identity development, so I’m not suggesting every person needs to avoid ever wondering about these things. Rather, I’m suggesting these questions have become fruitless within broader conversations among Christians trying to discern how to move forward with LGBT people. From what I can tell, the problem is not the questions themselves but how we’re using them: The common thread between the three is that I suspect we tend to overestimate how much each one will be able to inform our understanding of sexuality and our response to LGBT people. They’re not as useful as we think.
So, if the church in 2013 wants to discuss sexuality in ways that will benefit us and allow us to love more effectively and discern God’s will more clearly, I think it’s time to retire the following questions:
1. “Is sexual orientation a result of genetic or environmental factors?”
Let’s start with a big one. The Christian movement has a notoriously poor relationship with science, insofar as we’re great at embracing science we like and dismissing science we dislike. Unfortunately, this question brings psychological research into the spotlight, and it can lead us in two dangerous directions. First, it can draw us into a tenuous dichotomy that calls genetic things “of God” and environmental things “of the world.” Christians who don’t affirm same-sex relationships tend to embrace research that emphasizes environmental factors, while Christians who do affirm tend to embrace research that points to genetics; and passionately so, in each case. In either case, I think we’re being small-minded and—pardon my flowery language—blind to the absolutely beautiful wonder of our existence as complicated people who are biological and spiritual and chemical and relational. We’re also ignoring the power of both God and sin to work through both our genes and our environment. Regardless of where psychologists land on questions of causation (and my hunch is that it’ll be a “both-and,” because how could something so physical and emotional be limited entirely to nature or nurture?), I don’t want us to trap ourselves into thinking genes exclusively point to God and environment to sin, a dichotomy that seems to exist in our discussions of sexuality only.
Second, it can fool us into expecting an answer to this question will provide answers to many other questions, like whether sexual orientation change is possible (see question #3) or whether God assigns sexual orientation to people (see question #2) or whether homosexual orientation is natural, whatever that means. Answers to these subsequent questions are unrelated to causation, though, even if we did know for sure what makes some people gay and other people straight. I think we’re generally less concerned with causation in other qualities that make people different (question #2), and our noisy interest in the question of causes for homosexuality may be indicative of the church’s discomfort with the rapidity of our culture’s changing norms for sexuality and same-sex relationships. People on both sides of the debate give the question more weight than it deserves in order to build up their positions, but I think the answer here will be mostly irrelevant to the major questions that plague us. People will largely accept any scientific evidence that supports their positions as long as such evidence, however insubstantial, exists.
Ask instead: “What are the factors that have formed me into the person I am, especially related to my sexuality, and what are the factors that have formed my understanding of God’s will for my sexuality?” Sexuality is much more complex than the object of one’s physical attractions; it encompasses a bigger picture of human relationships, biological impulses, cultural norms, etc., etc., etc. I think we’ll get much farther if we stop seeking a one-sentence explanation for sexuality and begin to interrogate it as the result of innumerable factors, some of which come from God and others from our inability and unwillingness to live in God’s design. I’m less interested in why I am attracted to men than I am in how my culture, including the Christian subculture, has taught me I should interact with other men and women (and whether that’s holy), or in what sort of ideals I’ve striven to attain in my sexual ethics (and whether those are ideals worth striving toward), or what I perceive as normal and healthy (and whether I’m appealing to reliable sources for those definitions), or why I believe what I believe about God’s design for sexuality (and whether it’s true to God’s nature and history).
2. “Does God make people gay?” or “Does God assign a specific sexual orientation to each person?”
The former question is woefully unclear with the result that people can argue right past each other without ever discussing the same things, so I’ll address the latter, which is more precise. I’ve noticed many Christians have a fairly predictable pattern: Whenever someone possesses any quality or condition that makes them unique, our judgment about whether it’s a favorable or unfavorable attribute determines whether we’ll identify it as a blessing from God or as a symptom of broken humanity that God can redeem for God’s glory. So, if someone is particularly attractive or intelligent, we’re likely to recognize God as the source, but if someone develops a severe illness, we’ll probably recognize our imperfect world as the source. I’ve grown weary of discussions about whether God assigns sexual attraction, seeing as they tend to be little more than reflections of each person’s position on same-sex relationships: If same-sex relationships are sinful, then nontraditional sexuality is a symptom of a broken world; but if they’re not sinful, then nontraditional sexuality is one of the many ways God sews diversity into creation.
Furthermore, I don’t think a conclusive answer to this question would get us any closer to sexual ethics, which is usually where the conversation leads. People often use their answer to this question as support for their position on same-sex relationships (“God made me this way, so it can’t be wrong,” etc.), but since our answers are mostly speculative anyway, I’ll reiterate what I said above: Whether someone believes God assigns sexual orientation is usually a reflection of, and not evidence for, their position on same-sex relationships. There are passages in the Bible (especially in the Old Testament) that don’t share any of our modern squeamishness about attributing to God things we’d label “bad,” so the idea that God could make people gay while prohibiting same-sex relationships has never been particularly noisome to me; similarly, if sexual orientation (straight or otherwise) is not part of the identity God creates for each person, I don’t think that would necessarily tell us anything about God’s will for sexual minorities. If we’re going to talk about sexual ethics, we’ll have to find our evidence elsewhere.
Ask instead: “Is God glorified through my sexual orientation?” When the disciples ask Jesus whose sin caused a certain man’s blindness—a negative quality, it would seem, as far as they’re concerned—Jesus essentially dismisses the question, saying sin wasn’t the cause, and reframes the discussion: “This happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him” (John 9:3). In one of my seminary classes, we were talking about how we should respond to people who try and attribute natural disasters to God’s punishment on some particular group, and our professor concluded the debate by pointing out it’s just as arrogant to claim absolute knowledge that God didn’t do something as it is to claim absolute knowledge God did. Since we’re often less than certain about what God does and does not do—and since neither conclusion clarifies our discernment on sexual ethics—I think we’re making better use of our time when we explore together whether our sexuality (or our response to natural disasters and their victims) glorifies God. Regardless of whether God designs certain people to be gay, our primary aim should be God’s glory.
3. “Can God change someone’s sexual orientation?”
At best, this question is so much theological pontification, approximately as useful as asking whether God can make a rock so big even God can’t pick it up. At worst, though, this question can be a weapon wielded against those who have chosen not to pursue change in sexual orientation or who advocate against such pursuits on behalf of others. The question forces one of two responses: Either one answers, “No,” which sounds like a heretical diminishing of God’s miraculous power; or one answers, “Yes,” implying any lack of change is a result of human faithlessness or impatience. Don’t get me wrong: People asking this question are often asking it from a place of compassion, especially when they ask it to people who would actually prefer their orientation to change. But it disregards the difficult reality that is impossible to avoid in a life of faith: that God does not always do what people think God should do or want God to do, regardless of whether God is capable of doing that thing. As long as people have been in relationship with God, it’s been tough to swallow this particular characteristic of God’s involvement with us, and we rather think by now we should be able to predict and explain how God will behave in any situation. When “What God Can Do” becomes the foundation of our relationship with God, it can free our imaginations to allow God to work as miraculously as God wills, but it can also lead to perpetual dissatisfaction and frustration, paralyzing our faith and hope in a God who doesn’t behave as we’d like.
Ask instead: “Does God tend to change peoples’ sexual orientation?” or “Has God changed peoples’ sexual orientation?” or “Does God promise someone should expect a change in orientation?” These questions depend on our knowledge of how God has behaved among us rather than on some people’s conjecturing about how God should behave among us. They’re rooted in the reality of God’s promises and probably give us a better idea of what we should expect and what Christians ought to paint as our ideal outcome for people. The questions necessitate our honesty and fearlessness, if we have any hope of accurately assessing what God does and does not do, and they require us to listen to stories from those people who can be completely transparent about their experiences as sexual minorities. If we’re feeling particularly adventurous, I think the question “Why might God choose not to change someone’s orientation?” is probably more interesting than any others I’ve mentioned and could get us thinking about a much bigger picture.
Again, my goal with criticizing these three questions is to help us avoid framing our conversations in ways that are less helpful than we might expect them to be. What questions do you think have outlived their usefulness? And are any of the questions I mention here more useful than I suggest?
Part II, where I outline questions the church should be asking, will be posted tomorrow.
It’s getting to that point… that point where I realize I might as well automatically reblog everything OMO posts.
just lookin out for you gays. those evangelicals can be cluelessly antagonizing.
(Source: comingouttothechurch)
