In my comments section of the earlier post, Dolphin raises a sticking point with me.
A few years ago the Barna Group did a study and found that when Americans aged 16-29 (both christian and non-christian) were asked to come up with a word or phrase that described Christianity, the TOP answer (not one of the top, but the very top most common answer) given was “anti-gay.”[ed. note: added links are mine]
Not “believes in unity with God”; not “feeds the hungry, clothes the poor, opens hospitals around the world”. They don’t know we are Christians by our love but by our anger.
A couple of days ago Christian minister Rachel Held Evans addressed this very issue. Her post title was How to win a culture war and lose a generation.
Most feel that the Church’s response to homosexuality is partly responsible for high rates of depression and suicide among their gay and lesbian friends, particularly those who are gay and Christian.
In her post yesterday, Rebecca Luella Miller–who is a very nice person but also very opposite me on some of these issues–said
Since when did adults surrender standards of right and wrong to our children?
I’ve been pondering these things a great deal. During this internal questioning my mind has flashed back to the Frank Peretti. In one of his books (I’m sorry I can’t recall which one) he portrays a cabal of feminists and homosexual community leaders as working in a unified bloc to conspire the downfall of the Church. I’ve read countless articles and blog entries that say the same thing. There are many Christians who believe that we as Christians are in a war with Satan. Wait. I’m one. I believe that too. But then my question becomes this. What, exactly, are we fighting FOR?
There is one belief that says we are fighting for the rightness of God’s Word. Fighting to assert the Lordship of Jesus Christ. This group seems to see homosexuals as the forefront of Satan’s Army, pushing an agenda to defeat God.
Let’s pretend for a minute that this is completely true.
1. If we believe in the sovereignty of God, why do we fear any group of men?
2. If our God can be defeated by mankind’s beliefs and actions, what use is it to believe in that God? (Dolphin also asks this, rightly.)
3. If this Cabal exists, who are the enemy? The gay people or the Satan who is presumed to be guiding them?
Now, I happen to believe (because the Bible I believe in tells me so, and I’ve seen it and felt it and been in it) that we are in a war with the forces of Evil. Our scripture is pretty plain when it says we do not war against flesh and blood. Gay people are not the enemy. Abortion doctors are not the enemy. Women who don’t shave their legs and believe that abortions are ok are not the enemy. We have an enemy, that’s for sure.
But again I ask “what are we fighting for?”
I have been struck repeatedly over the last 20 years with the growing realisation that our desire to be ‘proven right’ is an earthly thing. I happen to think that this is the way Satan is tricking the Church. Our Fruit of The Tree of The Knowledge of Good And Evil is this. We want everyone to know what is Good and what is Evil. And we seem to be left with death. People are fleeing the churches in great numbers. We are perceived as haters of mankind and hypocrites against our own God’s directions.
Maybe, just maybe, if satan is using anyone he might be using our own pride and desire to be seen as right against us.
Jesus said that if all people were silent, the stones would cry out in honour of God. God doesn’t NEED us to acknowledge the I AM. But God did call us to carry the message of eternal love and
perfect peace to everyone. That’s our mission. That’s what I’m fighting for. I’m fighting for the right to let Hope out of the box. I want by the time I die for that poll to say “#1 They bring hope”.
In my experience though, I have said things to more liberal leaning friends in truth and love, and my words have been turned against me. I don’t hate gays. Never have, never will.
I will spread the message that if someone, *anyone*, including a gay person feels they are in bondage, there is hope for freedom.
I’ve tried to point out to those who are convinced homosexuality is 100% genetic that their position is as unloving as the person who says all gays are going straight to hell. However, when I state that I believe in what organizations like Exodus International are doing, suddenly I’m the hate monger, and I’m “anti-gay”.
No, I’m not anti-gay. I’m pro-God and pro-Hope.
Only the individual knows if, for them, homosexuality is a sin or not, and if that person deems it is a sin (because God is telling them so), then amen for groups like Exodus International and others who believe in the power of God to change that which, in man’s small mind, “cannot be changed.”
I’m with Jessica on this.
I disagree the current campaign to legitimize homosexuality, but I don’t hate “gays”. Anyone can come to Jesus and receive redemption.
If we can’t repent (turn from our selfish, defiant nature – and the behavior that stems from it) and turn towards God, and His Grace and Truth, then Christianity is nothing but moralistic fantasizing.
The heart of Christianity is supernatural. Imageo Deo, notwithstanding, we are bent contrary to God. Hostile. But through Jesus we’re forgiven and transformed by His Spirit. The “wanter” in our hearts is pointed back towards Him. Once that’s done, sinful conduct withers and passages like 1 Cor 6:9-11 make sense. I also think it’s the dynamic Paul was referring to in 2 Tim about ‘having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof.”
To insist we’re the arbiters of right and wrong for our lives is to exalt sincerity as the measure of truth, and commit the primal sin from the Garden. That’s what the entire Serpent/Tree/ episode was about.
Fact is, Repentance is a decision. An act of the will. It takes humility and courage to admit you’ve been thinking and acting wrong all these years. It’s an act of surrender, if you will, and lots of people aren’t willing to do that.
It’s interesting for me to notice that quite nearly all of the comments have sought to make this a post about homosexuality when really the post has nothing at all to do with homosexuality in any meaningful way.
Which, in and of itself, may provide some insight into question of the post.
It happens to be society’s current “hot-button” issue, not to mention being clearly addressed in the title and post. So your point is…?
Christianity is about sinners repenting and being redeemed back to God. That’s all of us, including those who engage in homosexual behavior.
And yet I can name you a whole slew of religions, practiced in the US, that people (their own members and outsiders as well) don’t associate primarily with hating homosexuality. Even those among that group that do label homosexuality a sin aren’t primarily associated with that teaching. Coble is speaking to that point.
A “whole slew of other religions”, eh? What some other creed says has no bearing on Christianity’s veracity or an individual believer’s devotion.
I’ve gone on record a number of times I don’t “hate” gays or single them out as “especially sinful sinners.”
Christianity is far more than a response to an individual’s sexual behavior. Or their political affiliation. Or their immigrant status. Or dietary habits…
I suspect most Christians are well aware that.
Out of curiosity, I’d like to know what the slew of other religions are.
“Christianity is far more than a response to an individual’s sexual behavior. Or their political affiliation. Or their immigrant status. Or dietary habits…
I suspect most Christians are well aware that.”
But that’s kind of the point. Most Christians might be well aware of that, but if the rest of the population isn’t, then doesn’t that indicate some kind of communication failure?
Let me word it this way perhaps. Not a perfect analogy for a few reasons, but we’ll go with it for now. If you polled everyone who knows me for a word or phrase that best described me and the top answer was “gay,” I’d honestly be upset by that. It’s true, and it’s even an integral part of who I am, but I sincerely hope that I offer more value to others than being “that gay guy.”
Out of curiosity, I’d like to know what the slew of other religions are.
Pretty much all of the Abrahamic religions have majority groups who consider homosexuality sin. Yet Christianity is the only one that is predominantly defined by that belief in the public eye.
In addition to the Abrahamic religions that Dolphin mentions: Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, Zoroastrianism, Native American religions, and more. I’m pretty sure that if you did a poll asking young Americans to come up with a phrase that describes any of those religions, or Judaism or Islam, the most common phrase won’t have anything to do with their attitudes towards homosexuality, even though a number of them consider it sinful.
I’m starting to wonder whether some of the commenters here actually read Coble’s post.
And what exaggerated stereotypes do we hold of these other religions due to a vocal, active minority?
And what exaggerated stereotypes do we hold of these other religions due to a vocal, active minority?
Only one I can really think of is the terrorism stigma associated with Islam in this country. Which I think should be concerning to Muslims. I also think that if 75% of the country was Muslim, it wouldn’t be a perception that they would have difficulty combating.
If your point is that all religions are predominantly known by “exaggerated stereotypes” “due to a vocal, active minority,” I’d be curious to know what you think these dominant perceptions are.
The larger point is the “dominant perceptions” are neither accurate nor permanent. The historical reference I mentioned is one example.
If it wasn’t homosexuality, it would be something else. I’ll certainly cater to someone’s intellectual integrity, but I don’t have to pander to their arrogance.
It’s a stereotype – or profile – that like most stereotypes, allows the viewer to retain their prejudices. It’s the same old shallow thinking and confirmation bias all around.
Gotta say, I really like the semantic acrobatics around here. Really heady stuff.
That said, I just had to stop by and tell you how much I LOVED that line – “I’ll certainly cater to someone’s intellectual integrity, but I don’t have to pander to their arrogance.” That was F-ing Brilliant!
Which is why, when I went back in the thread, I was a bit confused by the line, “Christianity is far more than a response to an individual’s sexual behavior.” No matter how hard I tried, I cannot get my head around Christianity as a ‘response’. It is a faith, it is a philosophy, it is a creed, it is a mindset, but a response? No, don’t get it. Not the way I think you may mean.
And did enjoy the idea of the viewer being able to maintain their prejudices by maintaining the stereotype. But I would take it a step farther than that. I’d say that the justification of acceptance in masses is involved here. And the verification of what one already was predisposed to believe.
Take that church that proclaims, – and can find passages in the Bible to justify their creed, – that Jesus loves you and wants you to be RICH!!! That one just cracks – me – up! I mean, – – – REALLY? But there are many who WANT to believe this and it verifies and justifies their thinking and actions respectively.
Yeah, I like reading this thread. It makes me think harder; good exercise.
And I think “I just don’t care what other people think” is a somewhat valid viewpoint to hold depending on your world view. With specific regards to Christianity though, I’m not certain of how it meshes with being the light of the world and being known by your works.
It’s not that I don’t care. I simply don’t give it the same weight. Do you? From your responses, I’d wager not.
We both know trying to please everyone is an exercise in futility. The court of public opinion is just too fickle.
It’s true “you can’t please all the people all the time” but a 91% failure rate does seem a little on the excessive side to me.
What I’m having trouble with i that you and a few others on here (sally not withstanding, she’s in a different league altogether) seem to be indicating that Christians absolutely are being as loving as possible and anybody who doesn’t see or acknowledge that love is at fault for their own perception. But that’s a pretty startling assumption when it’s 91% of all American non-christian young people and 80% of all American Christian young people. It just seems that there are an awful lot of people both Christian and not who are failing to see the love that you seem to be claiming is being offered in abundance.
Actually, I don’t make that claim.
In fact, I’m surprised they don’t see lots of other flaws. I sure do.
“It’s interesting for me to notice that quite nearly all of the comments have sought to make this a post about homosexuality when really the post has nothing at all to do with homosexuality in any meaningful way.
Which, in and of itself, may provide some insight into question of the post.”
I take some responsibility for this since my comment was first and therefore probably set the tone. As for providing insight, I would not read that much into it. I’ve been Christian for almost 2 decades, have lived my entire (nearly) 40 years smack dab in the heart of “hick” Indiana, and I’ve never run into anyone who “hates” gays, Christians or non-Christians alike.
The only Christians I know of are those individuals who picket at funerals with their nasty signs. That all Christians are stereotyped as “haters” because of them and others like them is a shame. There’s nothing I or any other Christian on this thread can do about that, but to live daily spreading the love of Jesus we’ve come to know as best as we can. Unfortunately those small acts of love aren’t interesting enough to merit prime time news coverage.
The other half of this equation has to do with what I mentioned in my first comment, I think. To non-Christians, saying there may be an alternative to the gay lifestyle, and in some cases a way out is in itself seen as “hateful”. In my opinion, it’s sometimes a knee jerk emotional reaction by someone who is trying to push an agenda. Or it triggers some past hurts in the individual who is listening, so they hold up the hate card as a deflection. Or, I suppose it could very simply be hatred within the person who is crying “hate”.
And, yes, I should have added that the “knee jerk reaction” is also due to the mistreatment many homosexuals have experienced in the church and in the name of Jesus. Although I will say, at least in my neck of the woods, I’ve never personally seen that kind of mistreatment, which is hopeful, considering I’m in a fly-over, Bible thumping red state. Perhaps it’s the people I surround myself, since I don’t tend to put up with nonsense.
“What I’m having trouble with i that you and a few others on here (sally not withstanding, she’s in a different league altogether) seem to be indicating that Christians absolutely are being as loving as possible and anybody who doesn’t see or acknowledge that love is at fault for their own perception.”
Um, really? Is that what you took from some of these comments (including mine)? Of course Christians are failures. They are not being as loving as possible. Nobody is. Do I have to repeat myself? People who give behind the scenes don’t get press like the Phelps family does. Most people aren’t media whores. And not everybody who preaches/acts in Christ’s name is a Christian.
“Is that what you took from some of these comments (including mine)?”
First, I think this discussion has probably been about fully played out so I’ll let it die, but yeah, that’s exactly what I took from the comments. Comments fell mostly into two groups:
“I’m gonna completely ignore the topic of why people perceive Christianity as being primarily about being anti-gay and instead reinforce that perception by using the post as a leaping off point to talk about how gay people are evil and don’t deserve basic human rights, but don’t you dare say I hate them because I don’t HATE them, I simply want to utilize the government to make their lives as hard and short as humanly possible and I also see nothing wrong with “treatments” that are medically unnecessary, have a 0% long term “success” rate, and have been proven to be extraordinarily dangerous.”
OR
“The only reason 90-some percent of young people see Christianity predominantly about being anti-gay is because the media giving attention to “bad” Christians or people calling themselves Christians when they aren’t.”
Shorter version: “Gay people are bad and it’s everybody else’s fault for not seeing that” or “It’s the media’s fault.”
Shortest version: “It’s everybody else’s fault.”
Given there are nearly 100 responses, I may have missed one, but I don’t recall seeing one that said somethign along the lines of “Whatever I feel about homosexuality, I suppose I could do a better job of showing gay people love instead of my focus being one of condemnation. After all, I don’t have approve of everything about someone just to be their friend. I can disapprove of something without having to spend all my time condemning it.”
And frankly it’s fine that I didn’t hear that, but it’s because that sort of thing wasn’t said (even on a blog that tends to attract rational and thoughtful commenters) that people have the perception of Christianity being primarily anti-gay.
To somebody who frankly DIDN’T see Christianity as PRIMARILY being about being anti-gay, it’s been an eye-opening discussion that has given me a much greater understanding of why Christianity is viewed that way by such a (surprisingly to me) large portion of society.
I think not everyone following this blog voices an opinion. Perhaps there are those like me that read everyone’s comments from the sidelines. Sadly Dolphin, I find this study on Christianity and its percentages to be disturbingly accurate. Too often we as Christians attempt to do the work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of others – trying to bring conviction for sins that we perceive – rather than be love, and grace, and mercy, and hope in people’s lives and allow God to do the convicting all on His own. He’s big enough. Yet we like to think we need to help Him.
Dolphin, I’m starting to wonder whether the problem isn’t that at this moment so many people in our society define themselves (and, by extension, others) by what they oppose. So naturally they would define any given religion (their own or others) by what they oppose. That’s the only way I know how to make sense of the expectation that a culture’s general impression of any given religion will be tilted towards the negative, and that there’s nothing odd in defining oneself (and being defined by others) as “anti-X” rather than “pro-Y.”
All the more reason to appreciate what Coble is trying to wrestle with in her post, Dolphin.
“I also see nothing wrong with “treatments” that are medically unnecessary, have a 0% long term “success” rate, and have been proven to be extraordinarily dangerous.”
This discussion certainly does prove that there is a wide gulf of misunderstanding. You’re right, the argument has probably played itself out, but I can’t let this little one go, because I think it’s directed toward me, and it’s also putting words in my mouth.
I don’t know what medical “treatments” you are talking about. You can pooh-pooh the idea that gays can change all you want, but it doesn’t negate the personal testimonies I’ve heard from people who were once in the lifestyle, but then realized they got caught up in it due to unresolved personal and emotional issues. The “cure” is counseling, fellowship, healing past hurts, reading the Bible, praying to Jesus for a heart that’s willing to be transformed, not from a “gay” person to a “straight” person, but damaged person who is willing to let Jesus mold them into His image.
Just because someone has engaged in sex with someone of the same gender does not mean they are always and forever “gay”. I find this notion annoying at best, and at it’s worst, emotionally, physically, and spiritually harmful. It’s freeing to know I’m not defined by what I do, and nor is anyone else, and we have Jesus to thank for that. His message is for everyone, not just “straight” people.
Don’t worry Jessica, at a later date I’m sure we’ll have the occasion for you to pit your anecdata against my combination of anecdata and scientific data. I don’t negate the personal testimonies you heard either. I know 3 current “ex-gays,” not in a “I heard their personal testimony as offered in some agenda driven church service” kind of way, but in the “these are my friends” kind of way. Even the way they speak of their own “transformation” (which they believe in) exposes the falseness of it. But, this isn’t the post under which to have the discussion. (side note: just to clear up some confusion you seem to have: one does not need to have sex with someone of their own gender to be gay, nor does one need to be gay to have sex with someone of their own gender.)
I didn’t hear the testimonies in a church. I have a personal interest in the issue.
However, to end on a point of agreement, I concur that some transformations are no doubt false.
I’m avoiding this discussion for the most part; I definitely have opinions on “pray away the gay” approaches and the attitudes underlying “you’re gay, sure, just don’t have any sex” perspectives. What compelled me to jump in, though, is that this and other discussions that focus on switching orientation or activity between binary “straight” and “gay” designations completely ignore the existence of bisexual people. “Just because someone has engaged in sex with someone of the same gender does not mean they are always and forever ‘gay'” – well, no – some people experiment, and some people are oriented in a way that is not solely attracted to one gender over their entire lives. There’s a difference between acknowledging intermediary and fluid orientations, though, and suggesting that most people can truly change or suppress that orientation, especially through religion.
@Dolphin, yes, this conversation has played itself out. In my own defense, I want to tell you that my initial comment was not aimed at making a defense of Christianity to non Christians, but to a fellow Christian–Katherine Coble and reminding her that there are Christians out there who are doing what they are supposed to–carrying love and hope to the world, and that these people get burnt out and tired and also get very little praise for what they do (not that they should expect praise, but they are humans). This isn’t an argument I would normally make to someone outside Christianity–that would be ridiculous. If a non Christian perceives that Christians are unloving and were to tell me that to my face, I would apologize. I would apologize and welcome that person into my heart and life. But that wasn’t the case here. And so my apology now is for making my comment public. I still believe what I said is true. I still believe that Fred Phelps et al gives us all a bad name. I believe politics and religion shouldn’t be mixed. I believe gay people should be allowed the same rights under the law as anybody else, and I will always vote my beliefs as far as it is possible to do so.
The way the media portrays Christians really isn’t fair. There are countless Christians involved in charity, who give tirelessly to others. Nobody cares about them. They volunteer until they drop, and then they get back up again and continue to give. Even Christians who believe homosexuality is wrong tend to say crap like “love the sinner, hate the sin”. And if people don’t buy into Christ as redeemer, they’re not going to get the hope aspect, anyway. I guess this rubs me the wrong way because I see my mom wear herself out in her duty to love and give to others through her volunteer work–and I know there are many, many others like her, who carry the gospel to their communities through their acts of love. But then a group of Christians w/ ugly signs saying crap like “God hates fags” gets in the news, and nobody cares about the rest. Just for the record, I’m not irritated with you, Katherine, but with the false perception of Christians played up in the media. It just isn’t fair! Yeah, I sound like I’m three, but it’s true. Life isn’t fair.
I just don’t buy that it’s the media’s fault. I know both people who SAY “love the sinner, hate the sin” and people who LIVE “love the sinner, hate the sin.” You don’t have to be a christian to see the difference in the two. Your mom may be the latter, but the problem is there are FAR more of the former. For every “liver” (not the organ) I’ve known (and I have known several), I’ve known (at least; speaking very conservatively here) 50-60 “sayers.”
Over three quarters of the American population is Christian. To suggest that the media has a bigger influence over how we view our neighbors, families, and friends than those people do themselves is to give the media far more power than it could ever have.
Nope, sorry, you missed my point. The media doesn’t care about Christians who love others tirelessly, and there are 1000s of them who do, because those people work behind the scenes. They do, however, give front page to Christians who carry signs that say “God hates fags”. I don’t think the media is entirely responsible for public perception, but because so many Christians work behind the scenes, people don’t see it. And isn’t “media” what we’re talking about here? Every article Katherine links to is “media”. I mean, how many homeless people are out there writing articles about those loving Christians who run the shelter? They’re not. And I don’t agree that it’s “far more of the former”. There are simply a lot of people who identify as Christian who aren’t AND there are a lot of people who don’t widely advertise the charitable acts they do.
Would you be more comfortable then with me saying there is a distinction between not advertising your charitable works and hiding your light under a bushel, and I think most Christians miss the mark?
I’m not talking about serving soup at a homeless shelter. I’m talking about genuinely demonstrating love for everyone you meet. How can you not advertise that? If you are love, you are the advertisement of. People notice love. Trust me, I’ve known people (Christian and not) who exemplify that (and for the record, not all of them share my views on homosexuality, but it doesn’t matter because the just people as people; in their actions, not just their words).
Yes, love does show. I agree with this. But the kind of love you’re talking about comes w/ maturity. Acts of charity are a part of this–this is why young Christians often learn a lot from what they give to others–because there are often mature Christians running the charity operation. Honestly, I think we need more mentoring of younger Christians from older, more mature Christians. But some people, regardless of age or maturity, just have a natural ability for altruistic love (the kind that doesn’t ask for a return. I wish I could naturally be that way, but I’m not, so I have to make a practice of it.
Christians are associated with anti-homosexuality more than with (e.g.) charity because legislators are pushing legislation that attacks homosexuality in the name of Christian morality; they’re not pushing legislation about charity. Because politicians, mostly Christians, are using attacks on homosexuality to get out the vote; they’re not urging voters to come out and vote on charity issues. Because Christian religious groups are funding attacks on the civil rights of homosexuals and calling homosexuality the main problem Christians have to combat in the world today; they’re not putting up billboards and putting out commercials on television about the terrible challenge of a lack of charitable work in the world.
Blaming the media for reporting on legislation, voting strategies, and public pronouncements is ridiculous. That’s (part of) what we ask the news media to tell us about, and the Christians promoting anti-homosexual ideas put them out in public precisely to have them reported on and publicized.
If you, as a Christian, find this emphasis misplaced, then it’s your responsibility to tell those people to stop doing these things in your name. And if they won’t stop, it’s your responsibility to get out in public and let the rest of the world know that even though they claim to be speaking for you and acting in your name, that is not true.
Otherwise, we non-Christians are going to think that those who call themselves your representatives are, in fact, your representatives.
This is precisely why I don’t want religion and government mixed any more than you do. I don’t like politicians using Christianity as talking points, and I’m very vocal about it. But now we’re talking politics. Katherine was talking about Christian witness–that was what I was responding to. Much good Christian witness goes unnoticed, while the idiots get the front page.
Okay, you’re kind of right. I’ll give you that these people do these unChristian things in the name of Christianity. But Jill is also correct in that those people get the coverage while those of us who do NOT allow them to speak for us get…blogs.
The other sticky wicket, when you get right down to it, goes back to the private conversation you and I had the other day. For those of us who are rigorous about practicing Charity according to the Gospel Doctrines it is a vital part of that charity that we not talk about it. So you’ll see a celebrity in the secular sphere being very public about giving $1million to charity but you won’t see a million Christians rebuilding homes after a hurricane or building hospitals in Zaire or working with the homeless. Because we aren’t supposed to talk about it. And we generally don’t. I personally despise Charity Resumes and Charity CVs that people put out about themselves. And it’s a dilemma in this day and age because the bad goes on record and the good goes unnoticed.
Do we need it to be noticed? Honestly, I don’t know if we do. It hurts our earthly feelings, but maybe that’s kind of the point. The charity is supposed to be about dying to yourself in order to meet the desperate needs of the other. So again maybe the “notice my good works” thing we feel is just pride pricking.
I don’t know. It’s a hard question. Because I essentially want three things: For people to know the Love and Peace of God, for people to not hunger and thirst, to have served my Lord to the best of my ability in whatever capacity I’m able. When stuff like this Barna poll comes out it really upsets the apple cart on number one. I always have to tell myself sometimes I just gotta stick to #2 and #3. But then again, I do also have a blog. That’s a small thing, but it’s a thing.
Coble, fair enough. And, Jill, I honestly-and-not-snarkily feel your pain.
So, let me refine or rephrase or whatever. What gives (many) non-Christians the idea that organized Christianity is about limiting rights rather than the many more positive activities that we know (many) Christians do are the things I listed above. Perhaps we ourselves don’t distinguish sufficiently in our reactions between the institutions and the individuals. But then, according to the polls, Christians don’t do that themselves.
And then, you see, people turn out to vote for the laws that limit homosexuals’ rights, and for the legislators who sponsor them. And most people, most voters in this country, are Christians. So it’s mostly Christians showing their support for these policies and these politicians at the polls. So … what are we non-Christians to think about that?
If my mother were to read this she would say “if life were fair, Jesus wouldn’t have died on the cross.”
The media are always going to go where The Story is. And they’ll tweak the actual story to make it more juicy, oftentimes.
I said more below, in response to the overall dialogue.
Katherine, thanks for the link and your kind words.
I don’t think we’re in disagreement on this subject, so I’m a little confused how the line you quoted fits with your premise. Speaking to your point, the article you linked to says in part
The issue of children determining right and wrong and parents going along with there assessment is a completely separate issue, not something specific to the discussion of homosexuality. It’s actually a parenting issue — specifically about teaching children moral values. I’ll have to develop that one more fully. (Hmmm. Maybe I have today’s topic. 😉 )
Anyway, I appreciate reading a Biblical assessment of the issue. Thanks for your clear stand on Scripture.
Becky
The thing I think we’re in main disagreement with about your post yesterday was the California Therapy amendment/thing. Because I think it’s a good idea.
Reading back over the post I see that I maybe didn’t give enough context for my thought process, but I read your post directly after reading RHE’s and was struck with the thought that you objected to the shifting evangelical perspective on marriage because that shift was primarily driven by the 18-29yos quoted in the Barna survey. In essence, youth directing our attitudes.
To be clear, what I said about the California bill is that President Obama’s declaration overshadowed it, so few people are talking about it. On Facebook, now, I questioned the government’s right to dictate to parents what kind of treatment they can or can’t provide for their children. But I don’t want to hijack this thread to discuss that issue.
As to the kids, that came straight from President Obama’s remarks that his daughters influenced his change of moral values.
Just wanted to clarify my position for your readers, is all.
Becky
Rebecca,
I’d agree that we ought not to allow children to dictate moral values, but there is merit to considering the innocence of a child when considering world view. As the song goes, you’ve got to be taught to hate. Most children will instinctively tell you that, let’s say, hitting a dog is mean. If a child (or more importantly most children) has no instinctive moral objection to something that I as an adult do, it’d be wise for me to take some time to reflect on my reasoning for that belief. I may have good reason, I may not.
I’ve spent a fair bit of time working with both children and the mentally disabled (those who in many ways are like children), and I pity those who think we’ve nothing to learn from such groups.
As for parents deciding what “treatment” they can or cannot provide for their children. There’s always a line (we don’t allow parents to violently shake their infants, even if the parent genuinely believes it’s for the child’s own good), even when not everyone agrees with where the line should be drawn. There’s nothing inherently wrong with the government protecting children, even from their own parents.
Dolphin, children are sinners. They are selfish and grab toys they don’t even want to play with. They throw tantrums and tell their parents “No” as one of their first words. Their inclination is for self and not for God — as is mine, and that’s not something society teaches me. It’s in my heart.
As I pointed out in my post, would a parent stop and consider whether to allow his daughter to be a part of street racing because she says its the new way of driving? I’d hope not. Kids need to be taught right and wrong.
They are born with a moral sense, but they don’t know what the lines and limits are. So we say, No, you cannot put your finger in the electric outlet, no you cannot put your finger in the mixer when it’s running, no you cannot put your hand down the garbage disposal when it’s on. We also say, No you cannot lie, no you cannot not talk back, no you cannot steal.
In other words, it’s not the child who knows the standards. It’s the parent who is in the better position and ought to know. That we have turned things upside down says a lot about our culture.
Regarding the California bill, the drugs that are on the market to cure various ailments have long lists of warnings of potential harm. No one is banning them. People are left to decide for themselves and their families. How sad that we think government can do a better job of making these decisions than parents.
This is the same government that runs the post office and oversees the Secret Service and the General Services Administration. Or here in California, the same government that had us doing rolling blackouts because of their overspending for electricity, that is regulating businesses right out of state, that wants to raise taxes rather than reduce government pensions. I don’t have a lot of confidence in their decisions or in their ability to provide oversight. They aren’t regulating what they’re supposed to as it is, and they want to pass more laws?
Becky
We will have to agree to disagree on children. I find it difficult to simply write off children as “sinners” and therefore say they have no value. First of all, if sinning means one has nothing of value than what does that say for any of us. As for street racing. I’d hope that a parent would prevent the child from street racing out of concern for the child’s safety, not out of some sense that children are evil. Like I said, I’ve spent enough time working with kids (not suggesting you haven’t, I don’t know you, just acknowledging my experiences) to know that they can be some of the most selfless beings on the planet (they can also be some of the most selfish). The mind of the child can be the source of great profoundness as well as great ignorance. Like the rest of us, they have lessons to learn AND lessons to teach and again, I pity those who refuse to learn from a child. But it seems our views on children (and based on your view on children, which truly leaves me mortified, I’d say mankind in general) are so vastly divergent that I doubt anything fruitful could come from a discussion of it.
As for medical drugs, you break your analogy in your very first sentence. You say “drugs that are on the market to cure various ailments,” yet you’re comparing it to a therapy methodology with a 0% long term success rate that has been conclusively been proven to be harmful. Even if we were to agree that their was an ailment to treat (which we do not), any treatment still must meet a certain degree of efficacy and safety or it’s not really a treatment at all. We ban ineffective and dangerous treatments regularly. There are certain treatments common in some cultures which, if I encounter as an EMS provider, I’m required by law to report as child abuse.
I live with a CPS worker so I know first hand the kinds of decisions some parents make regarding the well-being of their children. I absolutely think the government has to tread softy and carefully in such matters, but I think we do have a responsibility as a society to protect children. Then again, as I noted above, we have startlingly different views of children and based on what you’ve said of yours, I can somewhat see where you might disagree.
Jessica,
As hard as it is for me to pass up a debate on an easy target like Exodus International (and believe me, it is difficult), I’m going to because this still speaks to the point I was making in the comment linked in this post.
Ok, you think being gay is wrong; fine. The question is, is that what you (and your religion) want to be known for? Because, if not, and yet you are, you’re doing something wrong.
Jesus said “let your light shine before men; that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.” What I’m suggesting is that if other people see you as hateful (even if you’re not really on the inside), then it seems to me that there’s something wrong with your lampshade.
Kat,
Totally unrelated side note, I just glanced at your side bar under “Top Posts” and my eyes read the top link as “Marriage: Who And Why The Dilemma Of The Nipple” and I was thinking, “Ok, I definitely missed that post!”
I’m not a spokesperson for Exodus International, that’s just the first that comes to mind. I do know there are other, lesser known, perhaps more affective ministries. Unfortunately I don’t know their names.
I liken it to this (and this is why I get hot under the collar about it). I was diagnosed with depression way back in college. My mother, sister, aunt, grandmother struggle (struggled) with it too. When I went to the doc all I got is, “Here’s a pill. We don’t know how it works. There’s nothing you can do about your depression. It’s genetic.” My natural response to the doc (given my personality) was “P!ss off, you’re not God”, and so I set about searching for the root of the problem. I’ve learned so much along the way about myself, my family, the root causes of depression, and most importantly about my own responsibility in the matter, i.e. what I was doing do contribute to my own depression and how I can help myself feel better.
Turns out, the root of the matter, I was sinning against my own body…gluttony, sloth, pride, idolatry…all in subtle forms. No one would have looked at my life and said I was sinning against my body. I was a competitive swimmer, I didn’t over eat, I didn’t do drugs, I didn’t smoke, or drink, nor did I sleep around. But when I looked God straight in the eye (with an angry look in my eye) and said, “Why am I so d@mn miserable?” he gave me answers, and he also provided a way out.
“Ok, you think being gay is wrong; fine.”
Never said being gay is wrong, but this is the knee jerk reaction I was talking about when I mention something like Exodus.
Paul indicates that some thing can be a sin for one person and not for another. A “woman” who has a “Y” chromosome, but presents as a woman, who happens to fall in love with another woman…who am I to say that’s wrong or a sin? (That’s an extreme example.)
I think homosexuality has roots in both “nature” and “nurture”. In cases where “nurture” is at the root of it…God offers a way out, as proven by people who have walked away from the lifestyle. It’s a sin for some, not a sin for others. What category a person falls into, that’s between them and God, and it’s not my business.
I’m so tempted to address some of your inaccurate information on “ex-gays” but I don’t want to pull away from the larger point by turning it into a debate on sexuality because that’s not what this post is about. It’s about how Christians’ behaviors represent them to the rest of us (and indeed even to themselves).
Even if EVERYTHING you say is true. The question still comes down to, how do others perceive my religion through me, if it’s not in the way I’d like, why is that?
Jesus said “A city set on a hill cannot be hid.” If the view of the city from the outside looks starkly different than it’s citizens would like, it’s because of what those citizen’s are doing.
And I’m not suggesting that Christians should compromise on the terms of their faith. Just that if God is love, I think it’s fair to hope Christians would live their lives in such a way that non-Christians would say “Gee, I disagree with the Christians on X, Y, and Z; but nobody can deny that they sure know how to love their neighbors.” And if people aren’t seeing that love, that should be cause for concern to those who claim it as their religion, because if it was being demonstrated, it’d be hard to miss. After all, a city set on a hill cannot be hid.
I like how Ted Haggard puts it: “I’m a heterosexual with issues.”
“And I’m not suggesting that Christians should compromise on the terms of their faith. Just that if God is love, I think it’s fair to hope Christians would live their lives in such a way that non-Christians would say “Gee, I disagree with the Christians on X, Y, and Z; but nobody can deny that they sure know how to love their neighbors.” And if people aren’t seeing that love, that should be cause for concern to those who claim it as their religion, because if it was being demonstrated, it’d be hard to miss. After all, a city set on a hill cannot be hid.”
Agreed.
@Dolphin, you’re right. We should be letting our lights shine. We should be a city set on a hill. However, there is so much cultural crap that we all have to work through. For a start, the majority of Americans may identify as Christians, but how many actually are? For many, this is a cultural designation. But it’s still a designation, and many Christians look at the Bible and say, hey, homosexuality is prohibited, so I now have an excuse to act out on my biological biases. I think the deeper culture war is between heterosexuals and homosexuals, and religion is used as an excuse. Why do I say this? The majority of the voting population consists of older folks. Older folks were not taught that it was okay to be gay (I’m 38, and the topic went largely untouched in my health classes). Education sends powerful messages, and this is why the up and coming young Christians have fewer problems with being gay than older ones. I don’t know how this will all pan out, and I don’t even know if I’m correct about this. It’s just something I’m thinking about–that there seems to be a biological hatred for others who don’t fit the norm, and wishy-washy or cultural Christians are using this to send a message of hate rather than one of love. It’s this baseness, I think, that we need to overcome.
And then, there’s the Christian response of “I don’t approve of your actions, but I’ll support and love you in any way I can.” I had a friend who used that one on me, and it pissed me off. It didn’t feel like love AT ALL. But was it? Yes, I think, in her misguided way, she did love me, even if she was off in her approach.
Either the news hasn’t reached everyone or some people just deny the science that homosexuality IS in the DNA. The scientists have seen XXX/YY chromosomal differences. They have seen the brain scans. This is knowledge based upon science. It is something concrete that I can see and understand.
Pretty much everyone I know who is homosexual came upon that realization as they were leaving toddler-hood. That something was different. That it upset moms and dads. Therefore it must be wrong to be that way.
And then the guilt starts.
I ABSOLUTELY do not believe in the so-called therapists who say they can “cure” gayness as if it were a disease or mental problem. Nothing could be farther from the truth or more damaging.
As far as Christianity goes, no, Good Christians are NOT invisible. That is only a perception. HOWEVER, as a good Christian, I will tell others who “profess” to be Christian that they are NOT if they are attempting to make moral judgements for others. I truly believe that is the Lord’s domain and How Dare others try to take it upon themselves to make that call.
And so I will tell them to their face and in public that they DO NOT REPRESENT ME. THEY are the reason that people perceive the church in such a harsh, cruel light because they are exactly that – harsh and cruel in their pronouncements.
And if we Christians do not wish to be perceived in that way, it may also be a good idea not to enter into every situation with a Bible glued to your chest.
Kinda setting yourself up for failure, you know?
No one knows I’m a Christian until they ask me directly. I don’t advertise it. When someone asks me why I’m doing such a thing that couldn’t possibly serve me in any way, I tell them it’s in line with Jesus’s teachings and I happen to think he was a righteous guy.
“. . . but you don’t protest clinics, you don’t call out fags; how can you be Christian?”
“Well, I don’t think that’s what Jesus would have wanted.” And that’s the only answer I need.
As for why Christians are perceived badly in general – well, just listen to them sometimes. They throw the Bible in your face and scream at you that you’re going to hell! How does that influence anyone to the positive?
And the Arrogance?! And the self-Righteousness?!
Are there any better turn-offs for a message?
And those TWO traits, more than anything else, are what the problem is.
Funny – those are also the two traits that annoy the 99% about the 1%. Huh, how about that – – –
Is addiction in our DNA, too? I believe alcoholism passes down through generations. I’d say addiction to alcohol is a sin, too, and something a lot of people struggle with. Does that make it ok? Does that make it NOT a sin?
As far as “curing” gayness – well, can you “cure” addiction?
Perfect, thought provoking article! I want them to say “grace”, “grace and mercy”. Thank you Myc!
Great post and responses, Katherine. Thanks.
Katherine, we are not warring against flesh and blood but against powers and principalities, and how do powers and principalities fight? By twisting God’s word. By calling good, evil, and evil, good. By encouraging people to trade the truth of God for a lie. Satan is a liar and the father of lies.
We must speak truth.
Call me hateful if you must, but it is not the gays I feel such a need to fight. It’s ignorance of God’s word within the church that I am compelled to fight.
Words matter. Ideas matter. I don’t hate gays at all. I hate the ideas they (and their Christian cheerleaders) spew. I hate that people say, “God made me this way and God loves me this way, and if you dare tell me I’m sinning, you’re responsible for my suicide and you’re a hater.”
You say that the top answer young people gave about what it was to be Christians was that Christians were anti-gay. And then you say, “They don’t know we are Christians by our love but by our anger.”
Why is being anti-gay and angry thing? I’m also anti-liar, ant-murderer, anti-adulterer, and anti-female minister. Do these things make me angry? Is expressing my opinion only allowed if we’re liberal? Are all none-liberal people angry haters?
Here is J Gresham Machen:
Sally,
What makes me sad is that you feel that you have to compromise your principles in order love other people. I’m friends with a couple who will happily tell you that they think homosexuality is sin, but (in their behavior) they love everybody, openly and genuinely, regardless. Young people increasingly see the Christianity as anti-gay, not because certain sects of the church teach against it. It’s because it’s approached from a place completely devoid of love.
The Bible says, “If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.” People can disagree about various aspects of what belongs in a christian worldview, but any view you express without love is not christian.
dolphin,
You love people because they need it; not because they deserve it. They never deserve it, but always need it.
That said, the “love” God has for us is despite our sins, not permissive of them. Point of fact, He loves us so much, the Second Person of the Godhead took the penalty for our crimes upon Himself. The emotion/feeling you refer to demands God deny His own Word and nature. You want a “love” that subverts justice and transformation.
To experience the forgiveness of sins and salvation, an individual must repent and put their trust in Jesus. This is far different that “accepting Christ” as some sort of flue shot or “get out of jail free” card.
It’s not hatred,or love-less, to try and avert tragedy by issuing a warning on issues clearly delineated in Scripture.
Like the apostle said in Acts: “God now commands all men everywhere to repent.” Re-read 1 Cor. 6:9-11. The offer is open to anyone who’s willing to walk away from whatever particular poison is killing them.
good luck.
And, Sally, of all the sins in the world today for you and your church to attack, homosexuality is the worst? And of all the things you wish to be known for in the name of your religion, and that you wish your religion to be known for, hating homosexuality is the most important? Because, if that’s the case, I guess you kind of prove our hostess’s point — you’d rather be known by that hate than by any love, or any positive action, you bring to the world. Congratulations! You’re part of the reason that your religion is perceived the way it is.
Homosexuality is not the worst sin.
Hating homosexuality is not what I want to be known for.
I’m not sure why you think this? Why do you think I hate homosexuality more than I hate female ministers and no-fault divorce?
If no-fault divorce were on the ballot, I’d vote against it as fast I vote against homosexual marriage. If I were allowed to vote against abortion, I would.
The only sins I wouldn’t vote against would be those belonging to the first table of the law. We can force a man to go to church on Sunday, but we can’t force him to worship God. So I don’t think we should try to outlaw idolatry and taking the Lord’s name in vain and keeping the Sabbath. I don’t think we should try to force an outward obedience to the law.
But I do think that second table of the law should be kept illegal. Stealing, adultery (which includes all sex outside of marriage), murder (which includes rape and maiming), lying (slander) , covetousness (not sure how that would be enforced), I think all these should be illegal. I think our government should keep these things illegal because they are sins by one man against another man and that is what I think the government is supposed to guard us against.
Some may say that homosexuality between consenting adults is a victim-less sin, but that’s not true. Men sin against each other, even when the victim allows it. A man who visits a prostitute sins against her even though she wants him to visit.
Homosexuality is not the worst sin, it’s simply the sin we’re discussing on this post. It’s a sin. I don’t believe homosexuals should be allowed to marry. That doesn’t make me a hater.
If you don’t want to be known as an individual and as part of a religious group that hates homosexuality more than it hates or loves any other thing, possibly showing up on a post that is discussing why Christians are known as homosexual-haters more than as anything else to comment that hating homosexuality is a good thing isn’t the way to change that perception. Comparing homosexuals to animals or prostitutes is also no way to convince me, a non-Christian, that you love the sinner while hating the sin.
Moreover, by saying that you don’t want “to force an outward obedience to the law” but then saying that you would vote against homosexuals marrying, in favor of no-fault divorce, and against abortion you are contradicting yourself pretty thoroughly. Because those votes are attempts to force people of other religions to follow the strictures of yours. And, in fact, you are willing to force the majority of Christians in this country to follow the dictates of your own small sect of Christianity.
I know Coble, and I know that although she and I disagree about the most basic questions of religion we respect each others’ right to be (perhaps) wrong and don’t consider our different views of religion to have developed out of sin. You, on the other hand, seem to be pretty sure that anything you don’t like needs to be forbidden to everyone, because no one could disagree with you without sinning. I don’t know that I interpret my own scriptures correctly. I know that I try to do so, and to live my life accordingly. But I don’t demand that everyone conform to my interpretation. And I have found that those who are the most certain that they and they only have the proper interpretation of religious matters (the “arrogance” Coble addressed in her post) tend to love their power to coerce more than they love their fellow-humans. We all need, in the words of Oliver Cromwell, to consider that we may be mistaken.
comment that hating homosexuality is a good thing isn’t the way to change that perception
I’m not really concerned with your perception is of me, nm. I was merely answering the questions you asked.
My concern here is with my sister, Katherine, not with you, nm. I am arguing with her about her idea that not saying that homosexuality is sinful is more loving. I disagree with her.
I hate that “love the sinner but hate the sin” saying. I don’t know who came up with that one.
Do you know that God hates sinners?
Psalm 5:5, “The boastful shall not stand before Thine eyes; Thou dost hate all who do iniquity,”
Psalm 11:5, “The Lord tests the righteous and the wicked, and the one who loves violence His soul hates.”
Lev. 20:23, “Moreover, you shall not follow the customs of the nation which I shall drive out before you, for they did all these things, and therefore I have abhorred them.”
Prov. 6:16-19, “There are six things which the Lord hates, yes, seven which are an abomination to Him: 17 Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, 18 A heart that devises wicked plans, feet that run rapidly to evil, 19 A false witness who utters lies, and one who spreads strife among brothers.”
Hosea 9:15, “All their evil is at Gilgal; indeed, I came to hate them there! Because of the wickedness of their deeds I will drive them out of My house! I will love them no more; All their princes are rebels.”
Yes, Jesus died for sinners. Yes, God loved us while we were yet sinners. But there comes a day when sinners harden their hearts beyond the point of no return. And those sinners have to suffer the wrath of God.
My job is try to warn people of the danger that’s ahead and urge them to turn from their sins and repent.
We’ll have to disagree on the law bit. I don’t think it’s a Christian thing that adultery should be illegal. I think adultery is damaging and you don’t have to be a christian to know that.
You, on the other hand, seem to be pretty sure that anything you don’t like needs to be forbidden to everyone, because no one could disagree with you without sinning
I’m sorry you think that. You’ve misunderstood me. I don’t know how to clarify my position so I’m afraid I’ll just have to let you go on wandering around in confusion.
I think your position is pretty clear, actually.
Dolphin? What did I say that was not loving? I happen to have some very dear friends who are gay?
I don’t get it. Homosexuality is sinful. Admitting that does not make me unloving.
The post is about the number one perception of Christians being that they are anti-gay. You seem to be indicating that you view that as a good thing. If people know you primarily by what you hate, I’d argue you’re not doing a good job of letting your love shine through.
I’m not going to engage you on homosexuality in this post (though I hope you do realize that it’s generally agreed upon that the very fastest way to identify someone who hates gay people is to listen for them to say “Some of my best friends are gay”). That’s a secondary topic. This topic isn’t about gay people; it’s about Christians.
Oops. I meant that as a statement, not a question…I have some dear friends who are gay.
I don’t have to compromise my beliefs to love them at all.
Yes, Dolphin. Being anti-gay is a good thing. God is anti-gay, and he’s good.
Not only do I have dear friends who are gay, I also have dear friends who are pagan, and dear friends who are drunkards, and dear friends who are gossips, and dear friends who are murderers. Yes, in deed. A dear friend who shot and killed his sister and another guy during a party. Do I love these people? Yes, I do. And yet, I am anti-gay, anti-pagan, anti-alcoholic, anti-gossip, and anti-murder.
I also have a dear friend who has done time in jail for spanking boys (sexually) and another who had engaged in bestiality. These things are sinful even though I love the people who engaged/struggle with wanting to engage in them. And I will never, ever say it’s OK to do these things and Christians who call them sinful are haters.
You sound hateful. You sound angry. You sound like you categorise people according to the sins they committ. Sins that God has forgotten. (As far as the east is from the west)
You sound like you enjoy picking sins out.
Pardon the brevity and the typos. This was sent from my iPhone.
Katherine, Jesus sounded hateful, too. The truth is the stench of death to those who are perishing. I am not categorizing people according to their sins, people who want to say that homosexuality is not a sin are doing that. Homosexuals would say that bestiality is sin, but homosexuality is not. I’m saying it’s all sin. One doesn’t have the right to be legalized and not the other.
to say that homosexuals who are loving and monogamous should be allowed to marry, is saying that loving, monogamous homosexual acts are less sinful than bestiality. That’s simply not true.
I wasnt there in Galilee. But I dont think Jesus sounded hateful. I think he sounded firm but perhaps not venomous.
If you feel a call from God to tell people their sins, then do. Don’t let me stop you. Thats not my place and it’s not my call.
I don’t know a lot of what the people around me think of my witness and testimony. I merely hope that when they see me they see what God can do in any person’s life.
I feel a specific call to not address the sin state of anyone else. This does not mean I don’t believe in sin or that I believe x is a sin but y isn’t. I just believe fully in my call being that of love and hope and kindness.
Your approach distresses me because it feels demeaning and sanctimonious. And no, it’s not the words you say, but how you say them. You seem to feel a sense of righteousness for boldly saying “it’s a sin to be whatever!” and to further be saying that anyone who doesn’t say those exact same words is a liberal postmodernist with wishywashy values who doesn’t believe in absolutes. That’s how your postion looks to me.
My position is that I do believe in a lot of absolutes. The biggest one I believe is that Jesus died to bring us to God, to bring us Joy and Hope and fellowship and perfect love.
You said the point of your books is that young girls realize that Jesus is the perfect lover they’ve been searching for all along. How are they going to feel that way if all they see of Jesus is a cruel dismissal of flawed and fallen?
It just seems like you have a different take on the point of salvation than I do.
From the standpoint of a non-religious government, gay marriage is quite a different thing from bestiality because it’s between two consenting human adult partners. As far as Christians within the church, the spoken or written word of God is good enough as an arbiter of right and wrong. And within its pages are the ways we are supposed to deal with each other when we sin against each other.
I don’t think a non-religious government is going to see any difference for long. Some of you are young, but fifty years ago heterosexual shacking-up was bad and homosexuality was horrific. Now both of these things are normal and good. Twenty years ago, bestiality was seen as a horrible thing. But now we are beginning to accept it: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/2010/03/24/animal-lovers-zoophiles-make-scientists-rethink-human-sexuality/
These things have been going on forever. Otherwise God wouldn’t have had to tell the Israelites not to partake. There’s no reason to believe that our country won’t legalize bestiality in the next twenty years. And we’ll live with that and we’ll love the zoophiles just as we love the homosexuals and the gossips and the drunkards.
What I object to is not the love given to the homosexuals. it’s the idea that they deserve love because they are loving people. We have bought into this idea that homosexuals are loving and Christians are unloving. The truth is that homosexuals deserve our love because God tells us to love them, because they are no more sinful than we are, and because they are made in the image of God. But they are not more loving than wife-beaters or zoophiles. We don’t love them because they’re nice people. we love them because we love all people regardless of their sin.
Sally, I don’t know if I’m replying in the right spot, but I’m responding to your last comment on bestiality and the legalization thereof. If our government gets to the point that it legalizes sex between non-consenting partners, then you’re right–we have a serious problem. Bestiality is non consensual; sex with children is non consensual; rape is non consensual. Homosexual sex–unless it’s rape or with a child–is consensual adult sex. All I’m trying to point out is that what is legal isn’t necessarily moral. The government is going to take a different stance than the church, and as far as I’m concerned, the government can keep its paws out of marriage legislation (okay, that was unintentional). If the church wants to affect society and its morality, then it needs to bring the gospel to society to make that difference. Government should only exist to prevent people from harming one another–I realize this is an overly simplistic statement–but I’m going to stick with it for now. If the word of God isn’t enough to convict the hearts of Christians–to convict the leaders of the church!–then it’s the church that’s messed up, not the government. I think you would find that my moral positions are not so different from yours, so I don’t want you to feel that I’m attacking you, but, as a libertarian, my legal position is most likely very, very different from yours. We no longer live under a state church. We (as of now) have religious freedom. Thank God!
I don’t think we are far apart, on this issue, Jill. I agree with everything you wrote here. I don’t think Christians should spend time fighting homosexuality. I think we should spend time preaching the gospel. The only time I speak on this issue is when people suggest that Christians who believe that homosexuality is sinful are haters. To believe that alcoholism is sinful does not mean I hate alcoholics. And no alcoholic has ever accused me of such a thing. No thief has accused me of hate-speech for saying stealing is sinful. What is the deal with homosexuality? Why do they insist that calling homosexuality sinful is hate speech?
On the consensual sex issue: The age of consent has dropped and will continue to drop, I think. And as for animals? I think the people who engage can make a case that the animals do consent. We Christians know that consent has nothing to do with it, but I agree with you that the government will base its decision on consent, and I believe in twenty years we’ll see many people believing that animals and children are able to give consent.
I agree that the government should concern itself with protecting us from others and I hate that our government seems bent on trying to protect us from ourselves.
And, no, God has not forgotten the sins of sinner who refuse to repent.
I think we are fighting AGAINST the devil and I, personally think that’s a good thing.
Finally found the “reply” button. I was looking at the bottom of the posts.
Your approach distresses me because it feels demeaning and sanctimonious. And no, it’s not the words you say, but how you say them.
I am not on my blog attacking homosexuals. You are on your blog calling Christians haters for being anti-gay.
And then when I answer you, you say I’m sanctimonious?
I hear that people who call homosexuality sin are haters from liberal media all day long. I don’t answer them. I don’t feel a need to rebuke them. I bless and do not curse. But when Christians start calling other Christians haters for saying homosexuality is wrong, that requires an answer.
I feel a specific call to not address the sin state of anyone else.
You sound hateful. You sound angry. You sound like you categorise people according to the sins they committ. Sins that God has forgotten. (As far as the east is from the west)
You sound like you enjoy picking sins out…..
Your approach distresses me because it feels demeaning and sanctimonious. And no, it’s not the words you say, but how you say them. You seem to feel a sense of righteousness …
Last time I checked, being hateful and angry and enjoying picking people’s sins out and demeaning others and being self-righteous were sins. You think I’m sinning in this way and you have no problem pointing this out to me. So you should stop saying you don’t point out people’s sin. You should say you don’t point out nonChristians’ sin. Which is really a valid point. We are to judge those within the church. We are to correct one another. And we do that differently than we do with those outside the church, I think.
Which is why I’m here fighting with you.
You think I need correction so you write this post. I think you need correction so I answer you.
Why does that make me self-righteous and make you righteous?
Where did I ever make Jesus appear to be someone who cruelly dismisses flawed and fallen people? Just because I say that homosexuality is a sin, you think I’m painting Christ to be cruelly dismissive?
Just because I disagree with you, Katherine, doesn’t mean I’ve ever dismissed a homosexual person. I’ve hugged them, wept with them, prayed with them, and loved on them.
You may not paint people who say that homosexuality is a sin with the “hate” brush. It’s a lie. I know so many loving Christians who would lay down their lives for homosexuals, pregnant teens, post-abortive mothers, drug addicts, …whatever. And most of the most loving Christians I know do not want homosexual marriage legalized.
Have you seen these precious people in this documentary? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-tdpT_Hyko
Precious, precious people, made in God’s image, and utterly lost. They are heartbreaking. There is no hate in my heart for them. There is only sympathy. I know that there but for the grace of God, go I. I know that Jeffery Dahmer had no more sin in his heart than I do.
But refusing to call homosexuality sin and refusing to call bestiality sin and refusing to call sexual murder and cannibalism sin is not loving. Love is when you say, “Oh you poor sinner. You’re dirty and diseased. Let me hug you. You’re stinky and foul. Let me love you. You’re starving and blind, let me feed you and put salve on your eyes.” Love is loving them despite their sin, not pretending they aren’t sinning. Not refusing to tell them they are sinning. Love is standing with them and dying with them and protecting them. But it is never lying to them. Lying cannot be love.
hmm I thought I’d found the ‘reply’ button. Not sure why it didn’t nest the way it should have.
Where did I once in that post say that Christians who say homosexuality is a sin/homosexuals are sinners are haters?
You are presuming.
I said you sounded hateful, because your comment about homosexuals “spew”ing and repeated comparisons between a gay man having sex with his partner to a man sexually penetrating an _animal_ felt hateful and angry. As does this “you’re dirty, let me cry with you” statement.
I don’t “pretend people aren’t sinning”. I openly say that all people are fallen and in a sin nature and I’d like to bring them into a right relationship with God, wherein they can partner WITH GOD NOT ME to deal with repentance.
Unless the sin is committed AGAINST ME–rape, robbery, gossip–nobody owes me an explanation or an apology.
the title of your post is “we hate gays” and you say that people don’t know us by our love, they know us by our anger.
I’m hateful because I say other people spew? That’s a hateful thing? We live in such a world full of tender people who can’t stand any disagreement or strong speech.
I’m sorry I said people who lie about God are spewing. Some don’t spew. Some speak very softly. It was wrong of me to say that as if all people who think God loves homosexuality and requires no repentance are spewing. Please forgive me. I don’t think it was hateful, at all, but I do think it was combative and it was a poor choice on my part and I regret saying it, and I’m sorry I called you a cheerleader to those who spew.
You don’t think homosexuals are the same as zoophiles? Well how hateful is that Katherine? Zoophiles are no more sinful than homosexuals and no more sinful than you or I. You shouldn’t say they are more sinful than others. Why do you hate them and make them feel that Jesus doesn’t love them?
I’m serious. If you can’t love a man who has sex with a horse, you are not loving. We are to love these people and their sin is no worse than ours.
How can you say that my saying, “You’re dirty and diseased, let me love you, let me walk with you and weep with you,” is hateful? That’s what Christ says to us and exactly what we should say to others. We need to love those zoophiles as dirty as they are, because Christ loved us while we were yet sinners. He loved us and took our gunk on himself. He took our gross, disgusting sin on himself. Let’s not whitewash that.
And, no, no one owes you an apology. Where does that come from. Do you think I want homosexuals to apologize to me?
Okay, first off, I didn’t say I didn’t love the bestiality person. But I know that if someone compared my loving relationship to my husband to a loving relationship another person had with an animal I’d feel like they were demeaning my husband and calling him an animal.
I also feel like you are selecting shocking, prurient examples to hold up to homosexuality and then patting yourself on the back when you say “look, they’re all the same!” Otherwise you’d be comparing homosexuality with telling white lies, cheating on a test, driving over the speed limit, cheating on taxes, stealing a candy bar from Kroger, etc. Those are all sins. If you’re trying to make a grand point about how all sins are equal and we love every sinner, why are you consistently choosing what seems to be the most tawdry example you can come up with? That seems hateful. Oh, and Jeffrey Dahmer.
This type of thing is exactly why I don’t choose to go down the road with that “all sins are the SAME!” topic because then it becomes this “let’s list the sins!” thing and a game that ISN’T necessary.
How can you say that my saying, “You’re dirty and diseased, let me love you, let me walk with you and weep with you,” is hateful? That’s what Christ says to us and exactly what we should say to others.
What Christ says to us and what we should say to others are not always the same thing. First off, I would point you to the Garden of Gethsemene, where Peter was defending Christ and chopped off the Centurian’s ear. Jesus healed the ear. I feel like so much of the church’s approach is a chopping off of a Centurian’s ear. In a zeal to defend Christ, we leave people with gaping wounds.
My approach is to walk with those who want me to walk with them, to weep with those who weep. We meet Christ along the way, and Christ can tell them what Christ needs to tell them. When you meet a person for dinner at a restaurant do you say “You look nasty. Come, let’s have dinner!” No.
Also, I’d point out that Christ tailored his approach to his audience. With the woman at the well (the example so many people love to use) He first asked her for a drink. He didn’t say “you’re gross, but give me a drink!” He just said “may I have a drink?” They had a whole conversation about the Living Water before the husband thing came up. When it did come up he just said matter of factly “you have five husbands and are living with yet another guy.” He didn’t say “you whore. I love you.”
the title of your post is “we hate gays” and you say that people don’t know us by our love, they know us by our anger.
The title of the post is #1 We Hate Gays, and is a reference to the Barna poll which gives that as the #1 thing people think about us. People think we hate gays. That’s not calling all Christians “haters”.
And then you had to go and prove my point about “knowing us by our anger” with the whole “spew” thing. No, expressing your opinion isn’t only allowed if you’re liberal. But there’s a way to express an opinion without twisting the knife.
Christians don’t believe (well, many Christians, I’ve run in to some who do) that sins are ranked according to a degree of badness. But many people in the WORLD do. And when your audience is The World, as mine is, saying things like “I’m not just anti-gay, I’m also anti-murderer” gives the world the impression that you consider gay people “just as bad as a murderer.” Which, granted, you do. But again, in the eyes of the world it’s a downward, and therefore distasteful comparison.
That’s specifically why I’m very careful to say we are all fallen. It’s just the best way to state the truth without running into nasty equivocations.
Way to be selective, Katherine. I also said I’m anti-alcoholism and anti-gossip and anti-I don’t know what else. I’m not going back to comb the comments, but I know, and you’ll know if you go back and read, that I compared homosexuality to all kinds of sins, in several comments.
I said one thing “spew” and that is not to be forgiven? That proves your point that I’m angry at gays? I’ve asked you to forgive me. I was sincere. Will you please forgive me? I’m sorry for twisting the knife. I’m sorry I was unkind. I’m sorry I sounded sarcastic and angry and mean. Will you please forgive me?
But I know that if someone compared my loving relationship to my husband to a loving relationship another person had with an animal I’d feel like they were demeaning my husband and calling him an animal.
But you don’t believe that people who compare gay loving monogamous relationships with your marriage are demeaning your husband? It’s OK for them to say he’s a woman, but not OK for them to say he’s an animal?
I’m all for being articulate and accurate, but Christians are always going to be misunderstood and misrepresented. It’s been that way since Jesus came, and it’s a fool’s errand to think this world system will ever appreciate us or the Gospel message. Early Christians were considered atheistic, unpatriotic traitors who practiced cannibalism. That we’re thought of as “anti-whatever is the current hot topic” is unsurprising.
Rom. 8:7 says “The carnal mind is hostile to God” because Jesus represents the single biggest threat to a person’s self-will and rebellion.
Everyone knows John 3:16, but plenty leave off the rest of the passage to verse 21. End of the day, some people simply refuse to concede their accountability to their Creator.
Perhaps it’s time to shake the dust off your feet, Sally. You’re doing harm in your zeal to do good. It may make YOU feel good to testify like a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal, but you know the rest of that verse.
Who am I harming, Bridgett?
For one, Christians who hope to see their religion portrayed as one of love.
So in order to love my Christian brothers and sisters I have to simply not express an opinion on the matter of homosexuality and sin? My opinion that the Bible is true and good and that homosexuality is sinful, is not to be tolerated. It doesn’t matter that I’m speaking with respect and in love (with the exception of one slip up). It doesn’t matter that I have helped gays and lesbians, worked with them, eaten with them, partied with them, and loved them.
All that matters is that I think homosexuality is sinful.
That makes me a hater.
Katherine not only posts in public, she picks a provocative title, she links to a blog where I read, so I come over here–I never read her blog, I would have never come over here if she didn’t toss rocks over to the place where I was reading an get my attention–and then she puts a picture of Pandora opening the box, which makes me think she knows she’s opening herself up for a rumble. So I figure she wants to rumble. I figure she’s called people just like me over here to argue with her. So I come over to argue.
I think this is all a good thing. I think we should argue strenuously. I think ideas are important and iron sharpens iron and we need to talk and hammer out our beliefs.
But what I don’t get is why I’m a hater for my beliefs and all the people calling me a hater are tolerant and loving.
I’ll never link to Rebecca again.
Pardon the brevity and the typos. This was sent from my iPhone.
Folks, I think it’s pretty plain that we’re all talking past one another. I wrote this post to communicate my beliefs on the matter of how Christians navigate worldly issues. I like to think that my words were well-chosen and carefully presented as positively as possible.
For me and my house, Christianity is a positive thing, a hopeful thing. That is what I was presenting in the initial post.
I appreciate so much that all of you, each with hearts and minds I know to be earnest and caring, were moved enough to share your reactions to what I wrote.
I honestly don’t mind if the discussions continue, but I’d hope they can continue respectfully.
Sally, I believe you are probably much happier reading other blogs and commenting on them.
You have repeatedly mischaracterised both my initial post and several of my subsequent comments. You have done so in a combative spirit. You have characterized me as being on the side of Satan. I thank you for apologizing for that and accept your apology.
This one last time I will answer you plainly.
No, your opinion doesnt make you a “hater”. The _way_ you have CONTINUALLY expressed that opinion in this forum gives people great cause to doubt you when you claim to be loving. I have given you specific examples. I can be no more clear than I have already been.
My email is k.coble@comcast.net
If you, Sally, or anyone else who is a professed Christian, feel the need to have further conversation about the specific issue of homosexuality, feel free to contact me via that PRIVATE method.
This post was written with one purpose, a purpose which the subsequent discussion goes to great lengths to countermand.
Please feel free to continue to discuss ways in which the Christian population can be a more visibly positive force in our communities.
*Sigh* Well regrettably, I seem to lack the capacity to communicate to you the point that I’m trying to make, so this will be my last response to you. I sincerely apologize for not knowing the appropriate words to help you hear what I’m saying because I can tell from your responses you are not at all understanding what I’m trying to communicate.
Nobody is asking you to believe homosexuality is not sin if that is what you’re inclined to do. Nobody is asking you to not express that opinion if that is what you are inclined to do. But not a single comment you have made here has demonstrated respect or love.
Ironically, that’s exactly the point. It’s fine for you to have opinions, and it’s fine for you to express those opinions, but if you claim to be filled with the love of Christ the hateful rhetoric is shooting your witness in the foot.
You are not “a hater” because you believe homosexuality is sin. You are “a hater” because you can’t talk about it with out being cruel, condescending and judgmental.
I actually hope you’ll stick around and just read some of the posts and comment sections here, because one thing about the gig Kat has going here is that if you read, you’ll discover that us regulars don’t always agree with each other, but we do respect each other, we do treat each other with dignity and compassion to the very best of our ability, even when we are vehement disagreement.
Sally,
Nobody here is asking you to compromise on your beliefs. But you’ve set up a false dichotomy here. It’s not a choice between lying to people about what you believe is sin and demeaning and denigrating people. There is another way. You can still treat people with dignity, respect and love while acknowledging that they are not perfect. Other Christians (and non-christians for that matter) have been able to do it.
It’s not love to say “You are dirty and diseased, so let me cry with you.” That’s condescension and condemnation. One human loves another by saying “WE are dirty and diseased, so let’s sit and cry together and support each other as we each navigate our hardships and struggles.”
Jesus said, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone,” yet here you are verbally stoning others. There is no scriptural justification that I can think of for declaring yourself the ultimate arbitrator of right and wrong, or to mete out judgement and punishment. The Bible gives that job to God alone.
If you honestly believe that everything you say is out of love, studies like the Barna Group’s discussed in this post should be concerning for you. It means your messaging isn’t being successfully communicated. It’s not a question of whether you can be against something. It’s whether you think the primary message of Christianity, and of your life, should be focused on what you are against, or what you are for. If Christianity is little more than a method by which other people are condemned, what reason do people have to seek it out?
In your view, what is the primary message of your religion; condemnation or compassion? Studies like the one in this post indicate the message that is getting out is one of condemnation. If that’s not what you’re trying to communicate, it may be time to reconsider your tactic.
If Christianity is little more than a method by which other people are condemned, what reason do people have to seek it out?
If there is no one will ever be condemned, why would anyone need saving?
In your view, what is the primary message of your religion; condemnation or compassion?
It is both. Men stand condemned in sin and Jesus, in his compassion, walked with them and died for them. He took the wrath of God upon himself so that we would never have to die.
But what an idiot he was to do that if there really was no wrath to begin with.
Jesus said, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone,” yet here you are verbally stoning others. There is no scriptural justification that I can think of for declaring yourself the ultimate arbitrator of right and wrong, or to mete out judgement and punishment. The Bible gives that job to God alone.
huh? who did I stone? When did I say I wanted to mete our judgement and punishment? Would you please quote me, because I don’t remember doing those things?
Just an observation … Some things might sound great to one written down, but in real life they’re not possible. Like enforcing a law on the Biblical definition of adultery.
Matthew 5:28 (NIV)
But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
How do you enforce that? And envy? You can’t. In fact, isn’t it why early Jews had so many laws above The Law, to keep themselves from breaking the 10? And except for Christ, isn’t it impossible for anyone to keep the whole law – its purpose according to Galatians being to show us the need of a Savior?
I agree with all of this
The Christian population can be a positive force by speaking the truth in love.
You cannot leave out truth and you cannot leave out love, if you want to be a positive force.
If you speak love that only gives half the truth, you positively help people go to hell.
I realize I wasn’t taking time to present how loving Jesus Christ is. That’s because you all know that already. You’ve all already heard that. That’s why I posted verses about God hating sinners. Because that’s what was lacking from the discussion.
Thanks for allowing me to answer you, Katherine. I’m sorry that I misread your intent on leaving a track back at Becky’s site. I thought you wanted her readers to track it back over here.
Just to clarify the issue of the trackback. I linked to Becky because I read her point as an echo of Rachel Held Evans’. I linked to her only because that’s good blog etiquette, otherwise it’s copyright infringement. The blog software she uses automatically puts the trackback on her page. I did not link to her as some sort of hit bait. I don’t do that.
In future I’ll just leave her out of discussions since it means the dreadfulness of reading my blog.
I agree that no sin, despite what it is, is going to topple anything that Christ has accomplished. I also fully agree that we wrestle not against flesh and blood, and to do so, in protest or out-and-out war, is not Christlike and is a full frontal assault on Jesus. This is why I have never been much of a protestor, and when I have been, I made sure that those who saw me understood that I did not hate those I protested, or wish them any harm. Your goal to have the word “Christian” and “Christ” be synonymous again is also the goal of Jesus, and I have no doubt that He has placed this vision in your heart. I will add to this, though, that if we suggest to any sinner that their sin is alright, and that they were born with it so it must be natural–and therefore godly–we negate everything that Jesus incarnated to do, because we make our own natural selves our own saviors, and Jesus is set aside until a weirder sin comes along that we all can agree is not socially acceptable. In my love for the homosexual, I must present him and her with the full and unabated Gospel–and that Gospel is that the Light has come into our world, and we have chosen darkness over the Light.