Other than abortionists, no group in America is more reviled by the Church than gay people. As I've said here before, many seem to have set up barricades at the Gates of Grace and decided unilaterally that homosexuals are barred.
Yes, the Bible clearly teaches that homosexual activity is sinful. But the Church has taken it so far beyond that, elevating it above all other sins into its own category of evilness. Fornication might be evil, but homosexual fornication is "Eeevil, like the fru-its of the De-vil", as Mike Myers might say.
This is the saddest irony imaginable. Looking around contemporary America, I can think of few groups Jesus would reach out to sooner than gays. He was drawn to the outcast and the suffering.
As much as a fifth of gay men are living under the death sentence of HIV. Studies show 54% of gay men and 55% of lesbians report physical abuse in their relationships. Major Depression rates are up to four times that of the general population. Levels of alcoholism, anxiety disorders, suicide and drug abuse are incredibly high as well. These factors conspire to take twenty-five years from the average gay male's life expectancy. We're talking death statistics straight out of the 1870's.
This post isn't about the immorality of the gay lifestyle. It's about the immorality of turning a large group of people into an untouchable caste.
Yes, gays are unworthy of God's grace. So are you. That's why it's called grace.
Posted by Discoshaman at février 1, 2005 01:40 AM | TrackBack
Well said. You and I disagree about Scripture's witness on the issue of homosexuality, but it's clear we agree on its witness regarding all people, including homosexuals.
Posted by: Chris Tessone at janvier 31, 2005 10:14 PMChris-
I haven't seen you in months! How have you been?
Posted by: Discoshaman at janvier 31, 2005 10:21 PMI've been good mostly. Found a new church which I loved (a UCC congregation), am applying to grad school (Harvard Div School, MTS program), my wife is back from Berlin (she hated it--she should have gone to Russia!), and we have a cat now (photos here).
I took a hiatus from blogging, came back earlier this month. I was going through my old blogroll today, checking whether I'd missed anybody to add to the new one, and when I got to this post, I went, "That's why I had the Shaman on my blogroll!" :-) I still remember the post you wrote about Christians and pagans, not keeping non-believers at arm's length, etc. My church put my application for candidacy for ordination in File 13 for saying stuff like that this March, it always warms my heart to remember that there are evangelicals out there who understand.
Posted by: Chris Tessone at janvier 31, 2005 10:45 PMJesus was a friend of tax collectors and sinners. Jesus did not condemn the woman taken in adultery.
Jesus let a prostitute wash his feet with her tears.
The church needs to be more like Jesus.
Posted by: Joe St at janvier 31, 2005 10:52 PMAmen to what you say, man! It's trite, but "hate the sin, love the sinner" is what God does toward us. Unfortunately, when it comes to homosexuality, it seems like we evangelicals have the first part down real well, and let the "hate" bleed over into the second part as well.
Great website on the whole topic from a friend who is an expert, and comes at the whole thing with great compassion, is www.drthrockmorton.com.
Byron
a ticking time blog
www.byron-harvey.com
It is time you take a road trip. The next homosexual pride parade, you go down and witness to these poor lost souls. You pass out tracks and tell them about the love of Jesus. Oh yah.... don't forget to use the model that Jesus used when he confronted the woman caught in adultry, who was about to be stoned. Tell them to "sin no more". When you get out of jail or the hospital or both, I believe you will have a new insite into Christian / homosexual relations.
The scripture says that the sins of the fathers will be visited on the 3rd and 4th generations. Those that are viralently hostile to the blood of Christ are not approachable. We see this in Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, homosexuality and humanism. These are all strongholds of satan and most members of these groups are hostile to the point of physical force. Jews typically use the civil authorities to take care of the naive evangelical.
This is not the fault of Christians as you imply. It is the fault of reprobate minds filled with self righteous indignation.
I know of no church that would turn away a repentant homosexual. But hen's teeth are hard to come by.
Ummmmm... theologically I agree with you, Disco. But RA makes a point that I wouldn't so much make in the theologcial sphere but rather in the political or ecclesiastical.
Of course homosexuality does not move someone further from God's grace than any other sin. Let's posit that.
But what do you do with an ideology that militantly tries to redefine Christian orthodoxy? I don't see the problem as being homosexuals as people needing God's grace and our welcome into the community of grace. I'm sure that there are some Christians on the extreme right who say that, but honestly, I work with pastors throughout the US and I don’t know ANY that would say that homosexuals don’t need and shouldn’t receive grace.
Who doesn’t believe homosexuals need grace? Lots of homosexuals. Because of gay ideology and gay “theology” we aren’t challenged to show them the same forgiveness we would show any sinner… we’re told that homosexuality is not a sin. That to name it a sin is akin to racism. That the historic Christian faith is oppressive, bigoted, our hermeneutics are all wrong, that the Spirit is evolving the church to accept gay marriage and gay clergy, etc.
The Reformed position – which I think is the broadly evangelical position today – is that homosexual orientation is not sinful, but homosexual practices are. Just like if I, as a heterosexual man, was tempted to have sex with teenage girls, I am called to resist that temptation. No one I know is condemning gays for their temptations. Nor is anyone in America seriously suggesting that gays shouldn’t be able to have consenting homosexual relationships.
But when gays say that Christians should recognize homosexual practice as NOT sinful, that Christians should not just accept homosexuals as another sinner in need of grace but as healthy, functioning Christians in their own right, that Christian churches should recognize and perform gay marriages and that the church has no business excluding openly practicing homosexuals from the clergy because they are unrepentant in their practices… well, then it’s a different issue.
No, I don’t believe that as a whole the evangelical Church in America is condemning homosexuals, but it is fighting against an ideology that threatens to undermine our hermeneutic, theological, pastoral and philosophical principles.
Greg, I'm one of the "gay theology" folks who believes homosexuality is not a sin. I doubt there's much point in getting into my own theological position, because I'm probably too far outside orthodoxy for us to have a lot of common ground.
But while I understand many evangelicals feel a call to be pastoral toward homosexuals and want to do so, they fail pretty badly a lot of the time. A lot of times doctrinal fights spring up in inappropriate places, and while that may feel like love to you (showing a brother/sister that he/she has gone down a wrong path, etc.), in many cases Gospel and not Law is what's called for.
It's akin in many ways to relations between evangelicals and religious liberals. We religious liberals feel a call to be pastoral toward you folks, to engage in meaningful discussion as well as prayer/crying/laughing/etc. when that's called for. Do you feel loved by religious liberals? Probably not, because we're bad at answering our call, too. We get into fights when prayer is called for, we laugh at you when we should be weeping with you, we're sanctimonious when we read articles like the recent one in Christianity Today, etc. I think that's what's going on in relations between evangelicals and homosexuals, too, and that's what DS is getting at, IMHO.
Posted by: Chris Tessone at février 1, 2005 12:03 AMChris,
I think I understand where you're coming from. I spent enough years in campus ministry on a major liberal university campus, and pastoring in churches to "postmodern" (how I hate the term but it works for now) twenty-somethings to understand the terms of the debate. And no, we aren't going to solve the whether-homosexuality-is-a-sin debate here. I respect your opinion, and ask that you not patronize me by assuming how I would treat you pastorally or talk about how you as a (self-described) reliious liberal laugh at someone like me when you should be weeping for me, or something equally condescending.
Still, just because I respect your opinion doesn't mean that I have to agree with it. See, here's the thing: what's at stake in the conversation is whether there is any place in the church for recognizing certain sexual behaviors or practices as a sinful at all. If you agree that there is, now we have a discussion about which behaviors, and why, and on evidence of which texts, and what we should do about it. We may come to agree or not, but at least we have a meaningful discussion.
But if you say that, for all practical matters, the church has no business approving or diapproving of any sexual behaviors as long as they bring a sense of fulfillment or whatever to the person, then you have radically redefined the hermenuetic and philosophical framework of Christianity.
And it is that view -- the idea that sexual morality does fall under the jurisdiction of the church (or maybe that sexuality does not fall under the jurisdiction of morality) -- that leaves us unable to have a discussion.
And if that is your view, I encourage you to read Disco's post today about the German government officially saying that prostitution is not a moral issue and comment on how this is any different than your position on homosexuality in the church.
Posted by: Greg at février 1, 2005 12:27 AMI respect your opinion, and ask that you not patronize me by assuming how I would treat you pastorally or talk about how you as a (self-described) reliious liberal laugh at someone like me when you should be weeping for me, or something equally condescending.
To be clear, I said weeping with, not weeping for.
My point is that you likely do not feel loved by religious liberals, and the reason is not that there's something wrong with you, but that there's a disconnect between the call religious liberals (all religious, but I'm talking about how my own community is failing) feel to love and their practice. I suggest there is a similar disconnect between the call evangelicals feel to be pastoral toward gays and their practice in that matter.
See, here's the thing: what's at stake in the conversation is whether there is any place in the church for recognizing certain sexual behaviors or practices as a sinful at all. If you agree that there is, now we have a discussion about which behaviors, and why, and on evidence of which texts, and what we should do about it. We may come to agree or not, but at least we have a meaningful discussion.
This is a common misconception among evangelicals about advocates for GLBTs in the church. No one I know is saying that the church has no business talking about sexuality or sexual behavior. (There may be some seculars saying that, but not many liberal Christians.) What we're saying is that homosexuality is morally neutral. Many of us take Galatians 3:28 as a basis for that belief, among other things.
But no one is saying sexual issues aren't in the scope of the church's moral teaching. The same people who believe GLBTs in committed relationships are doing nothing wrong in God's eyes will still tell you pederasty is wrong, will still tell you promiscuity is damaging, etc. And we say that because however fulfilling those behaviors may seem to the person doing them and justifying them, the reality is someone is getting hurt. It's a strong strain in feminist thought these days, too—the power to say "no", even though women are liberated and have the power to say "yes".
Posted by: Chris Tessone at février 1, 2005 12:48 AMRA-
"It is time you take a road trip. The next homosexual pride parade, you go down and witness to these poor lost souls. You pass out tracks and tell them about the love of Jesus."
You misunderstood my point. This type of approach is the very opposite of what I'm talking about. It's what Christians always do -- treat gays as some sort of unclean group whom we can only approach at shouting distance. Drive-by Evangelism that will keep us from dirtying our hands.
I'm talking about relational Evangelism. In other words, ministering grace and love to the people God puts in your life - both gay and straight.
"Those that are viralently hostile to the blood of Christ are not approachable. We see this in Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, homosexuality and humanism."
What is your point with this? Are you saying that we shouldn't minister to Jews, Hindus, Muslims, homosexuals or humanists? If so, then this is a rather novel approach to Evangelism, to say the least.
The Gospel is a universal Gospel. We are called to go forth and preach the Gospel to ALL flesh. You don't get to decide who hears it. Your mission is to faithfully preach the Gospel of Peace. If you believe that gays are somehow especially sinful, that should only be a spur to you -- how much more do they need the blood of Christ then.
I'm not naive. It is a hard field to labor in. Just as with the other groups you mentioned. I guess this is where being a Calvinist is a comfort to me. I know my place -- I'm to faithfully preach the Gospel, and the Holy Spirit is responsible for changing hearts.
This is not the fault of Christians as you imply. It is the fault of reprobate minds filled with self righteous indignation.
Actually, it's the fault of both. But I expect unrepentant unbelievers to act like unrepentant unbelievers. I have higher expectations for the Church.
I know of no church that would turn away a repentant homosexual. But hen's teeth are hard to come by.
So the church will welcome them once they repent, how broad-minded. I think we have a very different view of the role of the Church. In my understanding, the Church goes out and finds the lost, it doesn't wait for the lost to find themselves and then make room for them.
Posted by: Discoshaman at février 1, 2005 12:57 AMChris-
Please don't feel like I'm ignoring your points, I'm actively reading them. But as you said at the beginning, our starting places are too divergent for us to reach agreement here. So I'm keeping my comments more focused on the Evangelical view of things. :-)
Greg-
"But what do you do with an ideology that militantly tries to redefine Christian orthodoxy?"
You fight against it. We're called to "earnestly contend for the faith." Christ is our example -- there may be a tension between showing grace and yet holding the line doctrinally, but there is never a contradiction in doing so.
I'm not talking about the Church as a sociological institution, I'm talking about the Church as a group of believers who make millions of spontaneous decisions each day about how to relate to the people around them.
I'm talking about the visceral hatred of gays that many, many believers hold which prevents them from ever reaching out to them for Christ. Christians make jokes about gays and use epithets about them in a way they would never consider doing about any other group of people created in the image of God. You know I'm right in this.
"Who doesn’t believe homosexuals need grace? Lots of homosexuals. Because of gay ideology and gay “theology” we aren’t challenged to show them the same forgiveness we would show any sinner…"
If ACT-UP and Queer Nation and all the rest consider you their enemy, that only places upon you a further responsibility -- we're called to LOVE our enemies. This is a motivation to acts of kindness, not a reason to go to war.
Yes, on a socio-political and churchly level we need to work against their agenda -- that's part of living out our faith. But that isn't what I'm talking about here. We need to see gays first and foremost not as an interest group, but as human beings.
"No, I don’t believe that as a whole the evangelical Church in America is condemning homosexuals"
It's not enough to "not condemn." We aren't called to neutrality. We're called to seek and save that which is lost. The Church has books, conferences and what-have-you about reaching out to every demographic in America. Here we have around 3% of the population that's almost totally unreached because we've chosen not to do so. And that's to our shame.
Posted by: Discoshaman at février 1, 2005 01:14 AMThat was definitely a remarkable post. A reason I hate the church, but admire the real believers.
Posted by: Robert Mayer at février 1, 2005 01:55 AMRobert-
"A reason I hate the church, but admire the real believers."
Hopefully we can work on that a bit. . . ;-)
It's interesting to note that Jesus mostly contended with the religious elite, not so much the sinners. (Sinners got forgiveness and grace--implicit acknowledgement of their sinful ways, and the Religious Elite go damned to hell.) Although gays are not mentioned specifically, I think Jesus set an example in dealing with other sinners. And yes, I think he would call homosexuality a sin and admonish its practices. Just as He did with adultery, fornication, Stealing, Lying, etc.
I think the problem comes when homosexual ideology bleeds into theology. It seems to me that the behavior can be agreed to be called sin, but the theology of "acceptance at all costs" is what smacks Evangelicals in the face.
I only wish that we would have the same reactions to pornographers, adulterers, liars, abusers, the angry, etc. How many affairs occur in the church? How many lies are told? How many wives use too much makeup to coverup their newest cuts and bruises? It's ALL shameful and should be contended with.
Posted by: Marty in Oregon at février 1, 2005 02:48 AMDisco:
What can I say? You're right. No qualifiers on that statement.
Over the years I've gotten to be a midwife to a lot of people being born again. I've built relationships with them for months and years. I've prayed with them in cars, offices, under trees, at the front of churches after a worship service. I've explained the gospel hundreds -- no thousands of times -- across the USA and in other countries. I've explained -- after being asked -- how someone can pray to be reconciled with Christ and ask Jesus to be their Lord and Savior by kids, students, moms and dads, old people. They have been adulterers, child molesters, embezzlers, fornicators, murderers, drug addicts, AIDS patients, smart asses, liberal artsy-fartsy types and jocks. Some were gay. So what? Get in line, join the human race.
But here is my point: in EVERY SINGLE ONE of those prayers, the person praying had to acknowledge that they were a sinner in need of God's grace. To confess (not to me) with a broken heart. To be penitent.
Here's where I think that we're talking past each other: you object to those Christians who would say that the homosexual has to be penitent before we build a relationship with them, or before they come into church. Just in case there is no confusion here, let me say this clearly: WE WELCOME AND LOVE THE PEOPLE GOD PUTS INTO OUR LIVES, AND THE DOORS OF THE CHURCH ARE OPEN TO EVERYONE WHO WILL COME IN. INCLUDING UNREPENTANT GAYS. WE WANT YOU TO COME WORSHIP WITH US, AND WE WANT TO BE YOUR FRIEND.
But not to leave you (or the guy cheating on his wife, or the teenager hooking up at parties or the woman beating her kid or the employer abusing his employees or the employee embezzling from the employer, etc) in your current condition. Our mission is to share the good news and help facilitate the moving of the Spirit in your life to call you to repentance for your sins. Including the sin of homosexual practice.
Are we not on the same page?
Posted by: Greg at février 1, 2005 02:58 AMGreg!
"Are we not on the same page?"
Absolutely. :-) I especially liked this part:
"in EVERY SINGLE ONE of those prayers, the person praying had to acknowledge that they were a sinner in need of God's grace. To confess (not to me) with a broken heart. To be penitent."
What I'm calling for is people willing to reach out to gay people. That doesn't involve watering down the Gospel one jot. No one can have Christ for a Saviour that doesn't also have him as Lord. I want us to take away our own sinful, human barriers, not the natural offense of the Cross. It does and should confront sin of every kind.
Marty-
"I only wish that we would have the same reactions to pornographers, adulterers, liars, abusers, the angry, etc."
Exactly.
Posted by: Discoshaman at février 1, 2005 03:24 AMExcellent post, Disco. I think the problem for many Christians in this area is pride: we see our sins as being of a less heinous type than everyone else's. It is far easier to reach out to someone with struggles similar to our own... the train of thinking seems to be "after all, commiting "x" isn't so bad. I did it for years and Christ still saved me." Not reaching out to gays makes the cross of no importance in a believer's life...those nails were what the other guy deserved, not me.
RA: "most members of these groups are hostile to the point of physical force"
So what? If physical abuse is a good reason to stop witnessing, most of the first century church was in the wrong, as are many believers in third world nations today. We're called to preach the Gospel with love and compassion for the lost, regardless of how it's received. The other person's reaction is the Holy Spirit's business.
Posted by: Ryan at février 1, 2005 04:08 AMDisco, I think you have some good points. However, I think there is an important difference between gays who are not Christians and unrepentent gays who still want to be treated as brothers or sisters in Christ.
We are to seek and serve those who are lost, including gays. In a very real way we are not to judge those outside in the world.
However, towards unrepentant gays who consider themselves Christians, we show the most love by completely disassociating from them. This seems obvious from Paul's injunctions in 1 Corinthians 5. (And this is also how we should also act towards unrepentant Christians who are sexually immoral, drunkards, greedy, etc.)
Posted by: Coyote at février 1, 2005 05:37 AMMarty-"I only wish that we would have the same reactions to pornographers, adulterers, liars, abusers, the angry, etc."
Exactly.
Christians are chided for slippery slope arguments, but let's be honest--they're almost always right.
I am a friend in the USA, in the small town of Bellingham, in Washington State.
As Christians we are called to have love and compassion for every human being.
Yes, we hate sin, but we must love everyone as the Lord loves us even with our sins.
When my love fails, I call out to our Father to refill me with His. He never fails.
God loves us all, regardless of our sin.
As far as defining sin, and the question of whether homosexuality is sin, The Bible is very clear.
Corinthians 6:9 KJV says, "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived; neither the fornicators, not idolaters, not adulters, nor effeminate, not abusers of themselves with mankind
10: nor thieves, nor covetous, not drunkards, not revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the Kingdom of God."
We must remember that these sins are grouped together for a reason. One is not worse than the other, all are an abomination to the Lord God.
How can there be any question? Either we believe the Bible or we do not.
God help us remember that the sin of homosexuality is not a worse sin than gluttony, or drunkenness, gossip or lying.
This sort of puts it into a humble perspective, I believe.
Blessings
Great post. My own opinion is that the sins that aren't so "blatant" or public are often the most damaging. How many people in our churches have a critical attitude that is never called into question? How deeply has the modern church adopted a consumer approach to worship (and just about everything else we do)? It's much easier to rail against those who are railing against us.
I like this quote: "It is a cheap zeal that reserves its passions to combat only the sins and temptations of others." - D.A. Carson
Posted by: Paul at février 1, 2005 07:46 PMHi Discoshaman!
Good post! One thing I did not like very much is that you always reffered to them simply as "gays", a "gay" is not a kind of person, but a normal person practicing a very terrible sin. You might believe this, but from your post I was not so sure. Probably the reason that they are so immoral, is the same reason they "are gay".
I like everything else in the post though, and all sins are terrible, and if you break one letter in the law you break it all. Just because fornication and greed are not as much condemned by the Church does not make them better.
-raccoon
Posted by: Raccoon at février 1, 2005 10:19 PMPaul-
Love the Carson quote! Watch your email box tonight, I should be responding to your email sometime today. . .
Racoon-
I don't remember giving any definition of "gayness" at all. If it's wrong to simply refer to them as a group, then the Bible is also in error, because it doesn't say "normal people practicing a sin", but rather "homosexuals." If you'd like to ask me my definition, that's fine. But there's nothing in the post itself that differs from the Bible's own methodology.
Posted by: Discoshaman at février 1, 2005 11:02 PMDiscoshaman-
I guess their really is no other way to reffer to them besides simply "gay", I did write that I was not sure what you meant. Someone who practices the sin of greed is greedy. Some one who practices the sin of fornication is a fornicator. I guess someone who is praciticing homosexual sin is homosexual, or gay. What is your definition?
Posted by: Raccoon at février 1, 2005 11:58 PMRacoon-
I think as with most words, our definition depends on context. For example, when speaking of the word "church" I can speak of it multiple ways -- Theologically, sociologically, architecturally, etc.
Same with the word "gay". Well, except for the architecture part.
Speaking theologically, a "gay" or "homosexual" is someone who commits homosexual acts. I might even say not merely isolated acts, but someone who does so habitually (just as a "thief" as an identity is usually someone who does it as a vocation.) Incidentally, if I remember my Foucault correctly, this was the standard until the last century -- homosexual wasn't a state of being, but was a name one received from committing homosexual acts.
So we can speak theologically, and this definition should always be paramount. But it's also permissible to use the term sociologically or psychologically. There I can use a different definition. For example, someone who considers "gay" to be their state of being. Or as a way to describe someone who has exclusively same-sex attractions. And so on.
Which is why I didn't define it in the post. I wanted to make the term as inclusive as possible. Because my point is the same regardless of which of these definitions we use.
Thanks for raising the question, btw.
Posted by: Discoshaman at février 2, 2005 12:12 AMDiscoshaman-
Thanks for clarifying! Good post, thanks for writing it, and for answering my comments.
-Raccoon