I don't hear Christians saying "homosexuality is a lifestyle choice" as often as I used to. Instead the catch phrase that's been floating around for some time goes like this. A gay person will say, "Homosexuality isn't a choice." Then the Christian will respond, "But it is a choice whether you act upon it or not."
In my opinion this retort has a "So there. Nyah!" sound to it. It's just a comeback to parry an argument from the gay side. It's also a way of reducing someone's entire life's struggle over self-acceptance, social rejection, questions of faith and moral introspection down to a simplistic choice of "acting upon it or not." And making them feel judged for it.
Let's break down this exchange and see if we can put some thought into what ought to be the Christian's response. First off, when a gay or lesbian person says, "Homosexuality isn't a choice" or "I didn't choose to be gay," they are referring to a charge that Christians have been leveling at them for a long time, namely, that they do choose their homosexuality. So this person is really airing a grievance, and you should be thankful that he or she is willing to put it that nicely, considering that they are really trying to say that the church has been perpetuating lies about them
Here is a translation of what that gay person might actually mean: "I have been told by my church, or by Christians, that I don't really have involuntary same-sex attractions that I can't help. That I don't really fall in love with people of the same sex or am capable of experiencing real feelings of caring and spiritual bonding. Instead I've been told that I am actually a heterosexual who has perverted myself, or been perverted by molestation, so that I am now such a screwed up human being that I no longer know how to love naturally, but have become a morally and sexually warped person who lusts after unnatural things.
"I have looked at myself and asked myself whether this is true. For a long time I was afraid to introspect for fear of what I might find. Some people have killed themselves because they could not sort out the truth from the lies they have been told about themselves. But I've made it through all that and I know that this story about my so-called 'choice' doesn't ring true with the narrative of my life. Nevertheless, because this lie still hangs around conservative Christian circles, my family and friends think horrible things about me and this has damaged my relationship with them beyond repair.
"So now I am sharing this with you to disabuse you of hurting someone in your life who may be gay or lesbian: I did not choose to be gay. I should know since I'm the one who's experiencing it. Will you take what I have to say seriously?"
Now this is the part where you, as a Christian, might miss the entire context from which this gay person is coming. Instead you will be tempted to fight back with your zinger of a response so that you can go back and tell everyone in your church small group that you "witnessed" to a homosexual this week.
Don't do that. You must resist temptation. Primarily because you are probably slapping down a wounded soul, which is very un-Jesus-like. And secondly, when you answer the protest "Homosexuality isn't a choice!" with "But you can choose whether to act upon it or not!" you are actually conceding their point. You have shifted your ground without acknowledging that you have done so. You have redefined "choice" from "choosing to be homosexual" to "choosing whether to act upon one's [unchosen] homosexuality." By making this sleight-of-hand switch, you acknowledge that this homosexuality--which someone can choose to act upon or not--is in fact an unchosen condition.
A better approach would be to drop the superiority act. Instead clothe yourself with humility and try to come up with some honest words to say. Here's an example: "You know, I have to admit that for a long time I thought people simply chose to be homosexual, but now I'm not so sure it's as simple as that. I once knew someone who was ex-gay. Sometimes it seemed like she was making progress in overcoming her same-sex attractions and sometimes she was very discouraged. It got me thinking about whether it's realistic to expect people to completely overcome their sinful conditions. Okay, I know that you don't agree that homosexuality is sinful, but as a Christian that's the perspective I'm coming from, and I hope I'm not offending you by sharing where I'm at with this whole issue.
"Anyhow, back to my ex-gay friend, I remember that she used to say that even if she couldn't choose away her homosexuality, she could at least choose not to act upon it. You might not agree with her, but speaking for myself I had nothing but respect for her. As you were just saying, she probably didn't choose to be homosexual, but I admired the choice that she did struggle to make for herself every day."
Now if at this point you still get attacked by that gay person, fine. Take it on the chin. At least you can have a clear conscience that you've "witnessed" with kindness and courtesy. But my bet is that you will have succeeded in avoiding a fruitless argument and will find yourself involved in a much more meaningful conversation.
29 comments:
That may work if you have the ex-gay friend. Something else is needed if there isn't a personal experience which fits the topic.
As a Catholic, I could begin by saying something like, "The American Catholic bishops say the same thing. They and I don't claim to know for sure what all the factors may be; but clearly people don't choose their orientation — they become aware of it. The bishops go on to say that they know that God loves homosexuals no less than he loves heterosexuals. They also encourage them to choose a celibate lifestyle — which they know isn't easy."
Everyone has to think of an answer that works for them, that's true. I bring up ex-gays because I suspect that awareness of their experience is what has caused this shift from "it's a choice" to "acting upon it is a choice." At least that's what I "intuit" about straight Christians who like to use that line.
There is a particular lens through which we view the world. And if that lens is not modified by a proper understanding of Scripture we can tend to interpret reality by what we feel.
There is a difference between loving someone and eroticizing that love.
Those of us with SSA have this tendency for our love to want to go outside Biblical norms, to eroticisize what should be a male to male brotherly friendship into a male to male sexual encounter.
I speak from personal experience, not just from books on the issue.
But true love, defined by Biblical boundaries, acts not according to the dictates of our emotions or feelings, but according to the law of Christ.
The confusion of how we (gays and straights) talk to one another stems from the failure to distinguish between how we FEEL and what is objectively loving according the God’s Word.
I may FEEL caring and loving for my neighbor’s wife and my neighbor may be a total jerk to his wife, but just because I FEEL more caring and may wish to BE more caring than her jerk husband doesn’t make it right for me to express those caring and loving feelings in a sexual manner.
So, does a gay couple truly love each other?
In some ways “yes” and in some ways “no.”
“Yes” in that do many things that husbands and wives do for each other in a caring fashion.
“No” in that true love would seek to do what is best for my neighbor (whether it another man or my neighbor’s wife) but that expression of love would fall short of having sex with that man or woman.
So, while I didn’t choose to have SSA.
We do choose whether or not to act on how we feel and I have chosen not to even when everything within me desires otherwise.
I'm not sure that "it's a choice" vs. "acting on it is a choice" makes much of a difference. Few straights are expected to plan a life of celibacy unless they are seeking very specific life paths. And that choice was made by them. Straights would never tolerate expectations by everyone around them that they remain single and celibate. On the other hand, all gay people are expected to remain single and celibate, regardless of their interest in this. Paul wrote about this. Celibacy is good, but it's not for everyone. Marriage is the solution. Celibacy should be a gift, not a tax.
I gladly make the choice to continue to love and live with my husband and to celebrate our family.
I should start by saying that your article is incredibly well-worded. Thank you for understanding!
I guess I wonder what witnessing means here.
If it's about converting the masses to Christianity wouldn't it be better to note that a large minority of believers accept that the Bible promotes free and full inclusion of all members of the LGBT community? That way the unsaved can come to Christ without having to hate themselves for something they didn't chose.
I don't see why any side Ber would have a problem just stating that fact. You can even say, "I, myself, do not see things quite that way but given your situation I think it would be a great idea for you to attend this affirming church - I'll even go with you even though it's not my usual."
You could even fit in the story about your exgay friend... although maybe that's a story for another conversation.
Overall, I appreciate your attempt to paraphrase a hypothetical gay person's perspective, but I am still irked by some of your advice.
I'm not sure why you would tell your conservative Christian audience to assume a gay person is probably a "wounded soul". Gays are no more wounded souls than straights or conservative Christians. If anything, most gay folk I know have reconciled their faith and sexuality, would be offended to be considered a "wounded soul", and can offer valuable insight to faith and sexuality.
Also, your tactic of mentioning your ex-gay friend's choice-to-struggle seems to merely be a clever tactic of making the same "Homosexuality is a choice whether you act upon it or not" argument. Your implication is that all gay folks should make the same 'ex-gay' choice and being a gay-affirming person of faith is less admirable than your friend's choice to struggle.
Also, referring to your friend with the misleading 'ex-gay' description implies that your friend no longer has SSA which, based on most ex-gay stories I've heard, is unlikely. In fact, bringing up the controversial 'ex-gay' would probably lead to a whole other heated argument.
A more honest approach for a conservative Christian is to admit that they don't know much about homosexuality, but believe SSA are sinful. An even more honest approach would admit to having a fundamentalist faith, believing their particular faith is the one true salvation, believing all other faiths are false, satanic, and lead to eternal damnation.
Instead of witnessing (i.e. recruiting/marketing), I would hope you would advice conservative Christians to consider listening, sharing, and even befriending gays folks instead of counter-arguing.
John Trouten:
I really appreciate your comments. I don't think many straights really stop and think what they are asking gays to do when they suggest the celibacy option.
If Christians REALLY lived in community (and weren't just a collection of nuclear families dipped in Christianity)then that idea might be bit more palatable.
Echoing dannbarrick:
You were doing really well until "Don't do that. You must resist temptation" - and I appreciate your attempt to bridge the divide and attempt to build understanding until that point. But your advice following that is really problematic.
Listening, empathizing, befriending, and loving are good goals. Trying to convince a gay person that it's possibly to be gay and celibate (however you want to word that... I don't like the term "same-sex attraction" because, let's face it, no one talks about their opposite sex attraction outside of the ex-gay bubble) has you making a lot of unfounded assumptions about the person you're speaking to. If you were to have this conversation at me, I would be half amused and half offended - because oh boy, believe me, I've heard about ex-gays. I have friends who've tried to push me into ex-gay programs. I know there are people who have chosen a life of celibacy or therapy to try and change their sexual orientation, and while I respect their efforts, I also feel a deep sadness for the lies that I believe they've been told and the pain those lies have caused. I believe God loves his/her gay children just as much as the straight folks, and I don't believe it's a sin to be in a loving same-sex relationship. I'm always happy to discuss this with people who disagree, and I respect and am happy to consider their viewpoints. But if someone presumes my ignorance of the whole ex-gay movement and starts to evangelize via the story of their ex-gay friend, the conversation is going to start on a very sour note.
A better suggestion is to teach Christians to ask good questions ("When did you figure out you were gay?" "Have you been hurt in the past by Christians judging you?") rather than to make a teachable moment out of the ex-gay movement.
My last thought is this: you write "By making this sleight-of-hand switch, you acknowledge that this homosexuality--which someone can choose to act upon or not--is in fact an unchosen condition."
I think this may simply be a wording issue, but it makes it sound like you're counseling Christians not to fall into the "trap" of admitting that homosexuality could be an unchosen condition. That would be a slap in the face to a number of your readers (myself included), who can testify that for us, being gay is an unchosen condition. I understand that some gay people have chosen to abstain fully from sex and romance because of their religious beliefs, and I respect that, but regardless of what choices exist for them and others, being gay is not a choice.
The best advice you could give was summed up perfectly by dannbarrick: "Instead of witnessing (i.e. recruiting/marketing), I would hope you would advice conservative Christians to consider listening, sharing, and even befriending gays folks instead of counter-arguing."
Misty - I know this isn't what you mean or what you actually think because of what you've said on your interview with GCN - But why you say "but as a Christian that's the perspective I'm coming from" it just makes me cringe.
It's probably a good idea to only use the "as a Christian" phrase when you are talking about something that is specifically Christian and something of which there is little doubt.
When people say "as a Christian, I believe..." it asserts that every opposing view is inherently un-Christian.
This is offensive to those Christians who don't share your view and particularly confusing to those outside the Christian community.
You know, you're right. Not many people I come in contact with nowadays necessarily considers homosexuality a choice itself as much anymore....but they still believe it to be sin so you should still "fight" it.
When I was coming out as trans, my men's bible study told me that even if I was born this way, I should fight it because it was sin. I know being gay and being trans are different but I believe they must be similar in how they happen in the womb.
I also knew that fighting it was tearing me apart and it took a suicide attempt to really come to a realization that I couldn't live like that. Literally.
So yes, props to those that can suppress these types of feelings. I know a few trans girls that refuse to go any further and are definitely miserable because of it. I just couldn't do it.
As someone trying to live a celibate lifestyle, I constantly confront the question of "How single is single enough for the church?" It's a lot to take on as a 20-something when all of my friends are getting married. Virtually every interaction I have with people of my same gender is treated with suspicion... lest I be looking for an excuse to act on my sexual orientation.
I would like think that I'm missing something, but I can't find any resources for navigating God-honoring friendships with other women. The people who are providing direction in my community say that it's impossible for me to have a God-pleasing mutual friendship with another woman. The whole "flee temptation", "avoid the appearance of evil" and unmarried heterosexual persons should never live together things. (Because of the prohibition on men and women living together, I am barred from having other women as roommates except in situations of extreme necessity and last resort.)
Abstinence is one thing. Celibacy is another. And isolation is still a third. But I'm tired of feeling like a threat in any community that I happen to be a part of.
Kate:
"My last thought is this: you write 'By making this sleight-of-hand switch, you acknowledge that this homosexuality--which someone can choose to act upon or not--is in fact an unchosen condition.'
"I think this may simply be a wording issue, but it makes it sound like you're counseling Christians not to fall into the "trap" of admitting that homosexuality could be an unchosen condition. That would be a slap in the face to a number of your readers (myself included), who can testify that for us, being gay is an unchosen condition."
Actually, I was simply pointing out that the Christian in view has already conceded the point that homosexuality is an unchosen condition, and ought to admit to that fact forthrightly instead of trying to gloss it over by equivocating on the term "choice." Simply put, I am advocating for more honesty and less b.s. on the Christian's part. It never actually occurred to me that I might come across as counseling a Christian not to fall into that "trap." That would be very cynical indeed.
I'm sorry if this wasn't more clear. The entire point of my blog post is to advocate the fact that being gay is an unchosen condition. I'd be very sad if that somehow didn't get across.
Norm:
"Also, your tactic of mentioning your ex-gay friend's choice-to-struggle seems to merely be a clever tactic of making the same "Homosexuality is a choice whether you act upon it or not" argument. Your implication is that all gay folks should make the same 'ex-gay' choice and being a gay-affirming person of faith is less admirable than your friend's choice to struggle."
The little speech I conjured up for the Christian side is simply a realistic expression of where many evangelicals are at, and isn't necessarily what I'd say myself. I just suspect that many evangelicals get the idea of "it's a choice whether to act upon it or not" from the ex-gay movement and so that's what I'm addressing. The reason I am counseling people to mention exactly where they are getting their ideas from is that it opens up the chance for a real discussion. You can talk about the ex-gay movement, what it is, how successful it is, etc. If I were on the "gay side" of this discussion I'd use it as an opportunity to talk to my straight Christian friend about these things, which wouldn't happen if my Christian friend wasn't being honest about where he/she was coming from.
"Also, referring to your friend with the misleading 'ex-gay' description implies that your friend no longer has SSA which, based on most ex-gay stories I've heard, is unlikely. In fact, bringing up the controversial 'ex-gay' would probably lead to a whole other heated argument."
"Ex-gay" as a term is misleading, I agree, but there's not much I can do about what a certain group calls themselves. In spite of years of criticism about this misnomer they've persevered in labeling themselves that, so we're kind of stuck with it. However, as far as ex-gay experience goes, I'm suggesting that there are many straight Christians out there who realize that "ex-gays" have a very difficult time "overcoming" their SSA, and they are the ones I'm addressing. In fact, I think possibly the biggest impact the ex-gay movement may have on the evangelical church in the long run is demonstrating that homosexuality isn't a choice. I also suspect that they may be one of the main reasons why we aren't hearing "homosexuality is a lifestyle choice" anymore. My point is that straight Christians ought to 'fess up to the fact that this impact is occurring.
"I'm not sure why you would tell your conservative Christian audience to assume a gay person is probably a "wounded soul". Gays are no more wounded souls than straights or conservative Christians. If anything, most gay folk I know have reconciled their faith and sexuality, would be offended to be considered a "wounded soul", and can offer valuable insight to faith and sexuality."
I dunno. Aren't we all wounded souls?
Hi Misty,
"The little speech I conjured up for the Christian side is simply a realistic expression of where many evangelicals are at, and isn't necessarily what I'd say myself...."
Thank you for clarifying. Since we're talking about such a hypothetical situation, it's hard to imagine how such a pro-gay/anti-gay conversation would develop. Are these strangers, acquaintances, colleagues, family members? What are their objectives? Are they really trying to have a conversation or confrontational regarding religion, politics, society? Ultimately, it depends on what each person's objective is.
"... In fact, I think possibly the biggest impact the ex-gay movement may have on the evangelical church in the long run is demonstrating that homosexuality isn't a choice. I also suspect that they may be one of the main reasons why we aren't hearing "homosexuality is a lifestyle choice" anymore. My point is that straight Christians ought to 'fess up to the fact that this impact is occurring."
I do credit the ex-gay movement for at least making gay and lesbian issues a bit less alien to conservative Christians. However, replacing "gay is a choice" with "change is possible" is a merely replacing misinformation with misinformation. Unfortunately, I think the ex-gay movement has only developed a psycho-babble way to continue portraying gays as sick, immoral, perverts.
"I dunno. Aren't we all wounded souls?"
I understand from the conservative Christian perspective that everyone is in need. Maybe it's just me, but I think many gays and lesbians are particularly sensitive to being called "wounded", "broken", etc.
@ Erik- While your position might or might not have some traction in a conversation with a conservative Christian, I can think of nothing that will faster shut down conversation with somebody from outside of that subculture. When you say
>So, does a gay couple truly love each other?
>In some ways "yes" and in some ways "no."
Them’s fighting words. How nice that there are no qualifications here- apparently you believe this is true for any gay couple. You go on to state that you have put a bunch of (frankly religious) restrictions on how you are defining love here. Unfortunately, by then the damage of your statement has already been done. It’s the exact kind of statement that seems to assume knowledge that you cannot have of what truly resides in aonother huiman being’s heart. You don’t and can’t know that. The inherent superiority that you imply- that you have the proper knowledge of scripture- is irrelevant. It’s the kind of position that frequently results in a response from a non-believer like myself along the lines of "your mythology does not trump my reality." I certanly understand that conservative Christians dislike it when non-believers make such statements. I usually tend to avoid them myself. I thought, however, that it might be useful to point out the kind of provocation that can lead those who might be inclined to cordially disagree with you to become more bristly about it. I assure you that my husband of nearly 30 years and I truly love one another. Frankly, I don’t care whenther you believe me regarding this or not. Realize, thought, that it doesn’t do much in the way of fostering conversation, which was a big part of the point of Misty’s excellent post.
I think this advice is some of the worst I've heard. I really don't think there's anything wrong at all with explaining to someone that, yes, homosexuality may not be a choice, in terms of one's feelings, but that it is a choice on whether or not to act on those feelings. Even heterosexuals must choose if they are going to act on their feelings or not. Are all heterosexuals married? No. Do all heterosexuals seek out relationships? No. My grandma chose not to enter into a relationship for more than twenty years after my grandpa died. She could have, and probably wanted to at times, but she didn't. That was a choice. And I've known straight friends who chose not to be with anything while they were going to school or doing a project of some sort. So, whether gay or straight, we can make certain choices in our lives. And some choices are better than others (according to Christianity).
The point is that just because a person feels like doing something (even if that feeling can't be controlled or changed) doesn't mean acting on that feeling is okay or right. Our actions, whether gay or straight in motive, can be controlled. A straight couple, just to make another example, doesn't have to have premarital sex. And a man coveting another's wife doesn't have to act on those thoughts. Just as a man finding another man attractive doesn't have to go have sex with him.
Sin is sin. I know that sounds really black and white, but the church has declared homosexual actions as sin. People can disagree and protest, but that is a part of Christianity. Accept it or leave it. There is nothing wrong with explaining this to people who are SSA/homosexual/gay/etc. The idea though is that once it's been explained (and it doesn't even really have to be unless asked first--I mean as far as being confrontational just for the sake of it) the Christian should focus primarily on not witnessing first, but first befriending and trying to understand the homosexual person. And it is important to try not to be confrontational, angry, or whatever else negative in feeling when approaching this, since a great number of people do tend to relate their actions to self.
@Brandon
You say "...the church has declared homosexual actions as sin. People can disagree and protest, but that is a part of Christianity. Accept it or leave it."
This is exactly the attitude we do not need in Christianity today. The church, (unless you are Roman Catholic and believe all other churches are wrong) is not a single monolithic entity. Thanks to the Protestant reformation, there exist many Christian churches, all with their own take on homosexuality. I just spent the weekend at a gay pride event where dozens of local churches were on hand to welcome the gay community and raise awareness of the number of churches in the area who believe that homosexual relationships are not wrong or sinful and that gay people should be welcomed into full inclusion in the church.
Believing that homosexual actions are a sin is not simply "a part of Christianity," as you put it - it is an interpretation of scripture as are other doctrinal positions that certain churches take. Which means no one has to simply" take it or leave it" - in fact, that attitude has driven many gay people away from the church for decades. The "church", as you describe it, has caused a lot of pain where it could have sown seeds of love.
While you are more than welcome to have an opinion and join a church that shares that opinion, please don't presume to speak for all Christians or churches everywhere.
Many thanks,
Kate
Brandon:
A few things...
It's probably safe to say the vast majority of gay people know that Christians (generally) regard homosexual acts as sinful. Since that's the case, I really don't think it's necessary to be make sure that the homosexuals that one rub shoulders with are made aware of that. So, I'm glad that you mentioned that that shouldn't be a starting point for forming relationships.
Just saying "no" without attempting to fill in the gaps rings kind of hollow. I know I'm a broken record in this regard but until the same people that say no in this area (some sex erotic activity) and are willing to say yes in other areas (serious community, committed relationships)then they're not going to make much head way in this community. I don't think Misty's ever been coy about that line in the sand but she sees the bigger picture.
I think even if all of our needs aren't met immediately we can soldier on fairly well as long as some hope remains.
It's one thing to talk about straights saying no for a season because the hope for and potential for intimate connection (and I'm not just talking about the spousal coonnection but all of the relationships that ripple out from that)remains.
And isn't hope something that sustains us in so many areas despite hardships and struggles?
I wonder if conservatives can say anything other than "Don't screw up" to gay people. A friend had an outstanding blog post about the need to proclaim the Gospel at all times.
http://gayandevangelical.wordpress.com/2010/06/15/dont-screw-this-up/
Kate,
In no way did I mean to speak on behalf of all Christians. I was speaking of Christianity at large. There are Christians who do believe homosexual acts are okay, but the majority of Christians consider it to be sinful. My point is that, as Christians, we shouldn't sugarcoat calling something sin when we believe it is sin. And to think that that's a bad attitude, I just don't understand. It's wrong to explain to people what is sin? I know that what constitutes as sin can be open to different interpretations, but there's nothing wrong with telling someone what you believe. I'm not talking about throwing what you believe in the face of others or constantly harping on them. I'm just saying that a person can present their ideas, let the other party decide things on their own, and in the meantime, everyone can try to get along and maybe even be friends. If some people don't want to befriend me because of my ideas, then that's fine. But I see no reason to abandon my beliefs or be silent about them just because others may find them to be offensive. I know a lot of Christians have acted badly, but at the same time, there are a lot of homosexuals who have acted badly as well toward the church. There's blame on both sides. But again, I'll say that if a Christian tells you what his/her church believes, it's up to you, whether gay or whatever else, as to whether or not you'll take it or leave it, in the sense of accepting it or not. But despite wrong actions on the part of the church, there have been plenty of homosexuals who have turned away simply because they didn't want anyone telling them they might be wrong. They have a right to do that. But to me it's like telling a thief he's wrong to steal things and that theif turning away from you, not listening, just so he can go right on stealing as he has been. Some people just don't want to hear they've sinned or been in the wrong. And again, they have the right to do as they see fit. What I hear from you is that, because some people won't like what they hear, Christians should just be silent about what they believe. In my mind, that is more than a bad attitude, it's just downright stupid and foolish whenever this is something that could determine a person's eternal existance.
Drew,
I do believe hope is a powerful thing, but it depends somewhat on what you're hoping for. Relationships are important in the life of every person. But not all relationships should be sexual, and no person has to have a sexual relationship in order to have a fullfilled life. I'll refer to the Apostle Paul who said it was better to remain single. Now there's a good example of a straight person choosing against being in a relationship, and not just for a season. He did this so that he could better serve God. Other people can follow this same example. I know it's human nature to want to be in a relationship with someone else, but a person can still be happy and healthy without it.
@Brandon: "In no way did I mean to speak on behalf of all Christians. I was speaking of Christianity at large."
You misunderstand me, then. I am asking you not to speak for Christianity at large. There are a number of large, mainstream Christian denominations that have no problem with committed same-sex relationships and you do not represent their viewpoint. They are your brothers and sisters in Christ. You represent your own viewpoint, one which you may share with others, but please do not presume to speak for everyone. To claim somehow to speak on behalf of "Christianity at large" is insulting and demeaning to anyone who also considers themselves part of the body of Christ and disagrees with you. There will always be disagreements among believers, and I do believe we can respectfully engage in dialogue with one another (and well we should), but if any of us claim to speak on behalf of "(true) Christianity", we're slamming the door on that dialogue.
As to sin - I do believe there is a place for holding other believers accountable, and if you have gay friends who ask you about your beliefs, then by all means you should be honest and forthright about what you believe and why you believe it. My problem, however, is with the vast numbers of people who feel it is somehow their duty to point out what they see as a speck in a stranger's eye without instead focusing on the plank in their own. I am speaking of people who, without any kind of prompting or even a real relationship with a gay person, are all too happy to deny them welcome in churches, to protest at parades, to denounce gays to the press or from the pulpit. There is a line to walk between remaining silent about what you believe and thrusting it in the faces of gay people who aren't asking (and who, to be frank, probably know exactly what you believe), in a manner that is both painful and unproductive. And if/when you talk to a gay friend who doesn't want to hear what you believe, please pause for a moment and consider that perhaps he/she has heard what you believe before in a way that was painful, before you decide he or she simply doesn't like what you're saying.
If you have a gay friend who hasn't specifically asked you about your beliefs, my best advice would be to assume only one thing, which is that they probably know what you believe, more or less. The best thing you could do to build that relationship to a point of trust would be to listen, and to love, and to be patient - after which, a friend is going to be much more likely to listen to your views as well. The LGBT community tends to be skittish of well-meaning friends who feel the need to preach at us (and here, I speak for myself and at least a few others I know who've been hurt this way).
Just for reference, here's a March 2009 breakdown of mainline Protestant views on whether or not they think homosexuality is acceptable: http://pewforum.org/Gay-Marriage-and-Homosexuality/Most-Mainline-Protestants-Say-Society-Should-Accept-Homosexuality.aspx
Brandon:
Thanks again for your comments.
However, as I said before, what you've been telling Kate is something that is crystal clear to most homosexuals many of whom (most?) came from a place of faith. Homosexuals don't need to be beat over the head with that anymore. What's missing is the other half of the equation.
I'd encourage you to check out loveisanorientation.com (not what you might think!)and in particular this interview: http://youthhacks.com/2010/06/episode-31-andrew-marin/
Andrew Marin suggests that many in the church use concern over compromising your beliefs as an excuse not to move out of their comfort zones and engage with gay people in a meaningful way. It requires living in tension, yes, but I think that's true for much of Christian life.
As for Paul, I think his story is the exception not the rule, as far as singleness goes. And if Christians really did live in closer community with each other singleness might be easier to bear. I challenge you to think of the hundreds of (non sexual)benefits of living in a family that has its roots in a sexual relationship. I'm not saying you're wrong (or right!) but I do hope you'll consider the great sacrifice that straights/marrieds, often glibly, require of others - one that they wouldn't be in a hurry to make themselves.
Brandon: I believe that most gays and lesbians would "take it or leave it" when it comes to the church except that the church and its members aren't content with preaching and teaching to its members. I am a legally married gay man whose legal marriage is constantly under attack by church members who want to annul my marriage. My legal marriage rights don't affect your religious marriage rites. No church in this country (in Massachusettes or Iowa or anywhere else where gays can legally marry) has been forced to marry any couple (gay or het), nor have pastors in those states been arrested or fined for preaching against our marriages or homosexuality in general.
Kate,
Again, I did not mean to speak for everyone. I AM simply stating my view and the view of a great majority of Christians who believe homosexual acts are wrong. I know some Christians disagree and I'm not saying they can't if that's what they believe. And not once have I intended to speak as a "true" Christian, or to imply that those with other opinions are wrong. I'm only speaking from a majority opinion, or what has been historically accepted. As for what you wrote in your last two paragraphs, I completely agree with you. So, I'm confused why you seem to think I'm disagreeing. I'm saying the same things. I'm just pointing out that keeping silent when asked or when appropriate to talk about your beliefs is foolhardy. And, if you didn't know, I am gay myself and have also been mistreated by Christians before. I know what that's like. All I'm saying is that if you believe something, share those beliefs when appropriate and in an actually Christlike manner. That's the way Christians, in my opinion, should treat others. But that you shouldn't hide your beliefs, change them, or lie about them just because you're afraid someone might be offended. Believe what you believe and let that be that. Be open and honest (again, when appropriate and in a Christlike way).
Drew,
I know firsthand what it's like being single and not wanting to be. It does suck at times. But I also know what it's like to be in a relationship. There's just as much that can suck about that. For the first real time in my life I dated a woman for three months earlier this year. We broke up and that hurt, but after having gone through the whole experience I really do think, personally, remaining single is a better option for me. Being single doesn't have to be a nightmare or something bad. There's a lot of good that can come from that. A lot of people don't even want to consider that maybe something could be good about it though.
And again, I do NOT believe in beating people over the head with some sort of anti gay message. That's never been what I've been talking about anywhere in any of my comments here.
Jon,
I disagree with the way some Christians have treated you and your husband. I agree that gay marriage does nothing to hurt Christians or Christianity and that it should be allowed. I think if homosexuals want to get married, they should be allowed to.
Brandon:
Thanks again for your comments and for shedding some light on your situation. It puts things in context a bit.
I still don't know where my "line in the sand" is. It's gotten fuzzier as I've gotten older. Many (most)prohibitions in the bible against certain behaviour make sense to me. I can see how stepping outside those boundaries hurts others and damages relationships but as for committed same sex relationships? I don't get it. But I guess that's a discussion for another day.
I must say I'm generally impressed with the civil and respectful manner with which ideas are discussed on this forum. Kudos to you all.
Brandon,
You're right; I think we do largely agree, but you sound mystified as to how someone could have taken offense to what you wrote. Let me explain:
In your original comment, you wrote:
"Sin is sin. I know that sounds really black and white, but the church has declared homosexual actions as sin. People can disagree and protest, but that is a part of Christianity. Accept it or leave it."
Regardless of how many people in various Christian denominations do not view homosexual acts as morally acceptable, the church still does not have a single, monolithic opinion on the issue, and you persist in speaking as though it does ("that is a part of Christianity"). Your "take it or leave it" attitude towards gay Christians who disagree with you comes off as callous, whether or not you mean it that way (I suspect you don't). I think you underestimate how many brothers and sisters in Christ do, actually, disagree with you. If your language had originally conveyed more respect for opposing viewpoints, I think it would have been more obvious that we largely agree.
I think you also may have misunderstood Misty's post and some of the commenters above when you wrote your original (somewhat scathing) comment. Misty wasn't advocating for Christians to lie, change their beliefs, or remain silent when speaking to gay friends. She was advocating for an elevation of a conversation that I suspect she's heard before, and which generally leads nowhere. The situation she proposed was not one where a friend asked another friend "what do you believe about homosexuality", but rather one where a gay person shares something about his/her understanding of his/her own sexuality, and a Christian friend shoots them down with a zingy response, setting the tone for a confrontation, rather than a heart-to-heart conversation. Does that clarify things? No one here is advocating lying about your beliefs. In fact, the point of the post was that there are ways to create the kind of safe spaces in which those beliefs can be articulated.
Kate,
Again, I think you misunderstood what I originally meant, but I probably could have chosen my words a bit better too. I didn't mean at any time to speak for all Christians. I was referring to what has been historically accepted and believed and preached by the majority of Christians.
I do not have a "take it or leave it" attitude toward anyone though. I am sorry if what I wrote came across offensive, but all I meant by that was that if a person shares with someone else what they believe, that other person can either accept it or not. I didn't mean that if that person doesn't accept it they should be thrown away though, treated badly, or anything like that. I just meant they have a right to decide things on their own.
As for Misty's post, I may have misunderstood it. My response, again, may have been poorly written to convey what I was really wanting it to. I disagree that homosexuals have no choices. Everyone has choices in life. That was really what I was against from this post. Misty makes it sound as though there aren't any choices, and that Christians should just back off and not ever tell anyone there are choices in life, and particularly if by doing so they offend someone by sharing their beliefs. My point was that if you believe something, and if appropriate, share what you believe (and in a nice way). If the person you share your views with wants to get upset or hate you or something simply because they disagree with your beliefs, then that's on their head. Not everyone is always going to agree with you. Again, I may have misunderstood this post, but that was my original take. As for the comments before my first one, I was not responding to them. I didn't read them when I first posted.
And to wrap things up, I will apologize for any misunderstandings or anything I may have wrote that came across offensive to anyone.
Post a Comment