Evangelicals Need to Love Gay People

Read this article. It addresses many of the issues addressed here:

http://www.religiondispatches.org/blog/sexandge...

A "kinder, gentler homophobia" or perhaps I should say anti-gay prejudice is in some ways worse than the old kind. Both views express the same thing: it is not OK to be Gay; Gay people should either hide themselves in shame or else try and turn straight.

What we are dealing with here is an Identity. I knew I was different from early childhood. I was taught that Gays were horrible, sick, evil creatures (I was raised in the 50s/early 60s). When I discovered (not "choosing") that I was Gay, I had to undo all of this brainwashing that was put into me as a child. I am Gay, this is my identity, not a "lifestyle choice." I cannot change my identity as a Gay person any more than I can change my race or national origin. My identity is not evil, nor is it a "sin." Nor is there a "wrong" or "right" side to it. My identity simply is.

WaveTossed,

I've often thought that the most effective deterrent to anti-gay prejudice is to interact with gay people and just get to know them as fellow-citizens, neighbors, co-workers, etc. Though we will probably never meet face-to- face, I feel that I have come to know you as a result of the conversation on this blog. Perhaps others who are predisposed to dislike gay people may undergo a similar conversion.

"According to Public Religion Research, 37% of evangelicals ages 18-34 have a close friend or relative who is gay. Only 16% of evangelicals 35 and older can say the same."

Obviously the culture is changing . From statistics I read on prop 8 in California the voting for gay marriage was much higher in the younger crowd also .
I know people who had homosexual relationships all their lives and through Christ now are leading happy hetrosexual lives .

I also know people people who tried through Christ and could not get pass their orienation .
I don't see Christ loving one more then the other .
But when I see people who have because of their Faith have come to known lives where they feel closer to God and have lives they see themselves as better , yet the culture that promotes tolerance condemns them for their Faith , it is obvious we are just swapping one prejudice and intolerance for another .

Wavetossed,
I'm wondering what you think the effect of Ted Haggard's experience might have on the Evangelical community's views of homosexuality? Do you think as he tells of his experience that we might see steps towards more understanding of the issue amongst Evangelicals?

As an Evangelical Christian who happens to be gay, I am tired of the presumed mutual exclusivity of the two. I am happy to hear Evangelical leaders acknowledge that gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender individuals always have been and always will be in their congregations, communities, and families. However, true community and true affirmation cannot be celebrated if heterosexual Evangelicals continue to use "love the sinner, hate the sin" rhetoric. I would never assume the authority to name the sins of a member of my faith community; my calling as a member of the Body is to affirm where I DO see God in my brothers' and sisters' lives. I believe the walls that prevent heterosexual persons from celebrating the lives of their LGBT brothers and sisters crumble when there is genuine community between them. I am thankful for my heterosexual brothers and sisters in Christ who do not claim the power to name the sins of others and who celebrate my life just as I celebrate theirs.

Squeaky i think the Ted Haggard deal hurt things in many ways . The politics of the gay issue and churches getting involved in political matters also . Ted Haggard was seen as a insincere Gotcha from the right , and proof of conservative hypocracy from the left .

But I say that about Sojouners also often that they will use God to promote politics and we should not use God in that way .

I think people as Sister Marie notated just knowing gays more and more will change perceptions . I have a sister who is a lesbian , Quite honest , forthright , "and full of the characteristics we all consider good to have . If you like people in general , you will tend to like more gays then not . If you don't like people , knowing gays will not change your opinion I guess.

I really think the majority of Evangelicals realize that gays are like all people can be people full of virtue. Politics tend to make people demonize each other more then sexuality . But Wave may be better able to speak to that . I know just the comment highlighting Evangelicals as needing the lesson about gays I found wrongfounded . My sister lives in the Bible Belt , and though she is quite the liberal she says she has great accepting neighbors .

The nastiness people in regards to gays I have ever met have been non religious people . I agree using religion as a hamemr hurts , but I am talking about just mean rip your head off applauding what happened to Matthew Shepard , that
kind of hate is not from religious folks . Even Wave disagreeing with me perhaps on gay marriage and such , I find his distaste for my views much more tolerant then the God haters that are out there .

I hope Wave does not mind us putting him on the spot like this ?

As a Southern Baptist, I agree the rhetoric is completely out of hand. Much of what is said by Fallwell and his ilk is plain ugly, and unhelpful. But I also worry about the pendulum swinging too far in the opposite direction. I believe that we must love everybody, but scripture also states that homosexuality is sinful. It is not a worse sin than my sins. But it is a sin.

"but scripture also states that homosexuality is sinful. It is not a worse sin than my sins. But it is a sin."

You've hit the heart of the conflict. Because Scripture does NOT say that homosexuality -- all and every expression of it -- is a sin. Homosexuality in and of itself is no more a sin than being Black or being Jewish or being Unitarian or being Episcopalian (my denomination) is.

Check out this website. This is Soulforce, a group started by Mel White, who used to be Jerry Falwell's speech writer. He used every method, including electric shock treatments to try and deny himself and become heterosexual. He could no more become heterosexual than he could become Black. Being Gay is an identity, not a "chosen lifestyle" (maybe someone could someday tell me what a "lifestyle" is).

http://www.soulforce.org/

And particularly look at this, about what the Bible truly says:

http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-...

Speaking about Prop 8. I'm a libertarian, as many people know here. The libertarian solution to the entire marriage issue is that marriages/unions/whatever should be private contracts between the consenting adult human beings involved. The partners involved can have a church officiate at their union/wedding/whatever. Or else just live according to a secular contract.

This contract would be enforceable under civil contract law and any breaches of the contract could be heard by a judge in civil court. Issues such as fidelity, children, divorce, etc. can all be covered under this private contract.

And the government could get out of the marriage-defnining business -- including repealing any tax and Social Security laws that rely on marriage (and then any "marriage penalties" can be repealed). People can be free to define marriage in whatever ways they wish according to their views. No one would be required to recognize any union/marriage/whatever that they don't believe in. No one would be required to perform, nor would they be prohibited from performing any marriage/union/whatever ceremony.

People get confused by talk of the "homosexual lifestyle," as if Gays are incapable of doing anything other than indiscriminately have sex with whomever. Lust, adultery, rape, promiscuous sex is a sin according to Scripture. Love and any expression of love can never be a sin.

From the Wikipedia article on Ted Haggard:

"Haggard continues to receive counseling, and now he says that he is a 'heterosexual with issues.'"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Haggard

I don't know what Ted Haggard's affectional orientation is and I don't really care. Except that if he truly is Gay or bisexual -- then he should pray to God to learn to accept who he is. For a Gay person to try and change into a heterosexual, this is the same as a Black person trying to change into a White person. I will continue to keep him in my prayers.

Nothing against this 24-page pamphlet, but it hardly exhausts the complexity of Scripture and homosexuality.

If you want some rigorious biblical scholarship about Scripture and homosexuality, I'd suggest two authors (one from each side of the debate):

On the traditional side: Robert Gagnon (www.robgagnon.net)
On the liberal side: Jack Rogers (http://www.drjackrogers.com/)

You've hit the heart of the conflict. Because Scripture does NOT say that homosexuality -- all and every expression of it -- is a sin. Homosexuality in and of itself is no more a sin than being Black or being Jewish or being Unitarian or being Episcopalian (my denomination) is.

You've raised some good points.

I think if you engage the two sources I just posted, you'll find that almost everyone agrees -- on both sides of the aisle -- that nowhere does Scripture endorse or celebrate any kind of homosexual union. On the other hand, heterosexual unions are celebrated throughout.

You are right to say that Scripture does not condemn every type of homosexual union -- and specifically because Scripture does not address every type of homosexual untion (or sexual union in general, for that matter), there is room for interpretation and debate.

If there were an explicit blessing or condemnation of homosexual unions, such space wouldn't exist -- at least for Evangelical(ish) types.

Or, as your website puts it:

The Biblical authors are silent about homosexual orientation as we know it today. They neither approve it nor condemn it.

I think that's a mostly fair description.

I would disagree on one point, however. There is a scientific difference between a genetic determination and a genetic predisposition.

For example, I am a caucasian -- my skin is white, and that's a genetic determination. My genes tell my skin to have low levels of melanin, hence white skin. The irises of my eyes are green -- and again, that's because my genes have mandated that.

A genetic predisposition is different than a genetic mandate, however, because a predispostion relates to orientation toward a particular behavior.

As it relates to the Christian debate over sexuality, this gets pretty obvious: one may be predisposed to attraction to members of the same sex, but the predisposition itself does not justify the behavior. From a Christian standpoint, one needs more than just a predisposition to justify behavior.

So, we Christians have to debate about what the criteria are that either does or does not justify many of our genetic predispositions.

To take another example from sexuality, I'll use myself. I'm of heterosexual orientation, just so it's clear.

Biologically and Genetically: As a heterosexual male, I am predisposed to seek multiple sexual encounters and partners throughout my life. If I operate only on what my biological desires are, I would most likely pursue polyamory, not even polygyny, or polygamy, and I would have begun pursuing such behavior when my body began to desire it, i.e., around puberty.

However, my Christian faith places strict limits on my own sexual behavior -- and I've taken that very seriously. I am proud to say that I waited until I was married (and I was 25 when I got married) to have sex. And ironically, I've found that the limitations placed on my sexuality were actually very liberating. For example, I was spared the heart ache that comes with breaking accompanies the deep emotional ties that accompany sex, because I've only had those connections with one person; thus, I was liberated from the pain and heart ache I might otherwise have experienced.

(Please understand that I am not comparing homosexual unions with polygyny or polygamy -- there are clear theological and sociological differences, and I understand that, monogamous, consensual, etc. I'm speaking purely analogically, not comparatively).

My point in this long example is only this: a genetic predisposition to any particular behavior does not justify that behavior, in and of itself. As Christians, there are other criteria to consider -- and we need to take those very seriously. From a scientific and moral standpoint, we should acknowledge that behavior is still choice, even if the orientation to behavior in such behavior is not, and that there are other factors involved in justifying the behavior other than the orientation itself.

One further point of clarity -- I know that I just sounded like I've decided for the "right" on this issue, but in my own mind, it's still a bit of an open question. I lean a little to the right on most days, but not always.

I'm also fairly convinced that Scripture affirms monogamous relationships between a man and a woman and nothing more -- so the question for me in this debate is not, "what does the bible say?" but rather, "how should what science reveals about our human nature inform our relationship with the bible?"

Thanks for the response. That's pretty much what he said in the interview I heard him give. He also said that sexuality for many people is a very complicated issue, which to me, seems to be a step in the right direction. The acknowledgement of that may be the first step towards understanding that this issue is far more complicated than many would wish it to be. I'm hoping it will lead away from the "homosexuality is a choice" mentality.

My true identity is in Christ alone. Everything else is of little significance. It is a freeing thing to not base my identity on my gender, my race, my heterosexuality. My prayer is that more experience that.

"It's telling to see what rights Merritt urges the religious right to support for gays and lesbians-everything that has nothing to do with gays and lesbians actually having sex. They'll support our right to a job, our right to visit someone we love in the hospital or inherit money from them-but bless our most precious union-the one that might involve two men or two women getting it on? Forget it. Can't go there."

"Christians like Merritt cannot love the gay or lesbian person they see-they can only love what they wish that gay or lesbian person to become-not gay. Thanks for pushing the envelope a little bit on your way to Christian love, Jonathan, but honestly, I'd rather you just come right out-like my brother-in-law - and let your homophobia show. But, either way, we understand your ultimate goal-and like vinegar - it stinks." (from the blog wavetossed referenced)

The basic public argument in regards to homosexuality has been structured around and advance on the basis of equality. Many, who are identified as homophobic, have been taken to task for not even considering things like the right to visit somone in the hospital (and a long list of such things). They have often responded to the effect, "No, because the real objective is simply to achieve a shift in the culture's sexual ethics."

They were willing to entertain only that one question.

Candace (the blogger)--and apparently you--are taking the same stance.

There is one question. There is one answer.

I see all kinds of questions and issues wrapped up in this. And we won't begin to unwrap them until we submit to Jesus together in love.

So how do you perceive your interactions on this blog? Do you believe you cannot converse and love with those you disagree with? Is your love for me compromised because you might wage an argument with me over an idea??

Folks who jump on the path of seeking God's rule and leading a life governed by love, share the path with all kinds of folks, and become transformed. The transformation comes not from compromising with each other--but rather because we have put ourselves in submission to the Truth being walked out in loving relationships.

I understand persons (large numbers of persons) have deep wounds around this and are skeptical. I won't judge the skepticism. I realized as a very young man that I would encounter black persons, women, and gay persons who would strike out at me very hard for being a white, heterosexual man. I am OK with that. I frankly have found some of these persons the most loving.

The reason, is that I recognize it is very easy for such persons to love me who have found healing, who have a big dose of God's grace to put up with me, etc. For persons deeply wounded, I consider it a big gift they would even entertain a conversation with me. Life is often a big enough struggle without having to figure out whether this guy is going to be friend or foe. From my vantage point, I figure I have alot to learn and if no one else needs to change and learn--that I do--and that I am going to get something out of it regardless. And it really isn't that hard to duck when someone comes out swinging.

But for those of us given to Jesus--we genuinely must acknowledge we are each responsible to get on the path of seeking God's rule in love. When we say, "I'll only get on the path if.............................................."--we easily take ourselves off the path.

And actually, to clarify something: Being Gay or Straight isn't always an "either/or" thing. Affectional preference is actually on a continuum. Some (probably most) people are completely heterosexual. And then there are some people (a minority) who are completely homosexual. Then there are various degrees. There do exist people who have no particular preference when it comes to gender; these would be people who are completely bisexual. And then there are people who range somewhere between either the middle or either extreme.

I'd love to be completely bisexual, for gender to not be a factor in who I am attracted to in a sexual/romantic way. But that just isn't the case. I like men as friends, but I just cannot get sexually or romantically attracted to them -- it just doesn't happen. Most heterosexual people simply are not able to get sexually or romantically attracted to people of their own gender. I don't know why this is so.

And in the end, does it really matter? As long as your affection is true and constant and that it's not just passing on from one partner to the next i.e. "hooking up." The Bible makes it quite clear that casual sex is sinful and destructive, and I believe this. Lifelong faithful love to a partner -- of whatever gender, race, etc. -- can never be a sin and there is nothing in the Bible that states that this sort of love would ever be a sin. If this sort of love is not a sin, then neither are any expressions of this sort of love.

"So how do you perceive your interactions on this blog? Do you believe you cannot converse and love with those you disagree with? Is your love for me compromised because you might wage an argument with me over an idea??"

Jesus taught us to love even those who are our enemies. So of course we should love those with whom we have simple disagreements (who are certainly not our enemies). As for someone who denies the identity of people like myself, or else who would detest or de-humanize that identity: I am very tempted to get angry at them. But if Jesus could bless those who were torturing Him on the Cross, then surely I can strive to follow in His footsteps and bless those who might express resentment and hate toward me and my kind.

As for those who use the "gentler, kinder" form of de-humanization (that was described in the article I cited), I can pray for them and hope that God will someday lead them to a fuller understanding of the humanity of ALL of God's children.

I would read what Soulforce has to say on this issue. It's quite powerful.

There is much about soulforce I have greatly appreciated.

You speak of the humanity of All God's children. What is the most humanizing truth you could hold in your heart towards me??

That you are a Child of God. That God loves you just the way you are.

I agree, Christians are going to be loving deceptively or compromising themselves until they wake up and discover that anti-gay exegesis is weak exegesis. When you take away the compromised translations and hand-me-down interpretations, the Bible has nothing to say against loving, monogamous, life-long gay relationships. I recommend anyone who wants to have a biblical attitude to read "A Letter to Louise" http://www.godmademegay.com/letter.htm.

I do not want to be rigid or mean but I do believe that in the Bible there is definitely at least one Scripture that specifically calls homosexual behavior disobedience to God, i.e. sin, that is Romans 1, as follows...

8For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

I do not believe that any Christian is allowed to condemn or judge another Christian, but to make blanket statements about the Bible like you do here is an area I would fear to venture into...I don't like a lot of things in the Bible, but I have to bow down to them, because I fear Yahweh...My ways are not your ways, says Isaiah...
and...if homosexual sex is a sin, it is not any worse than any other sin, and there is forgiveness and healing for it, too
these are deep things, and it is not for me to command anyone to go further into obedience, I just believe it is possible, if wanted...

blessings forever...Andy

Wave - "Lifelong faithful love to a partner -- of whatever gender, race, etc. -- can never be a sin and there is nothing in the Bible that states that this sort of love would ever be a sin." Would that be similar to the story of Genesis; "It is not good for the man to be alone..."

If God is love, then human loving is a reflection of God's love. We're made to love...... and that's from God.

Hello Andy, I appreciate the spirit of your post here. It isn't often I've heard or read Romans 1 quoted in a way I would describe as humble so I appreciate your post. I think the problem that many gay Christians have with the passage in Romans is that we find it doesn't tell our stories. To use your quotation from verse 23: "...changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things." Many of us have held on to the same God we encountered when we first became Christians, the God manifested in the person of Jesus Christ. That hasn't changed. We try to follow the example of Christ while also acknowledging another truth in ourselves - that we are gay people as well. Does that make sense?

Hi
thanks for the note. I don't think it does make sense, but, again, you have to 'work out your own salvation' like I do mine....I've been in Jesus a long time, and the things that happened to me, that I was given, don't seem to be universal....it's not my business, it's the Lord's....blessings forever....Andy
P.S. If you are interested, I had/have a music/writing career, and you can find me on many web sites...

quote 'letjusticeroll'
"It's telling to see what rights Merritt urges the religious right to support for gays and lesbians-everything that has nothing to do with gays and lesbians actually having sex. They'll support our right to a job, our right to visit someone we love in the hospital or inherit money from them-but bless our most precious union-the one that might involve two men or two women getting it on? Forget it. Can't go there."

no, some of us can't...in a way we wish we could.
But will you take away, or ask us to deny, our conscience?
I understand being against Christians who demonise and deny the humanity and feelings of gay people with anger, disgust, and hate, but we are not all like that.

[and yes, I have studied all the arguments that seek to explain why Romans 1 does not mean 'that' and and Corinthian passages, [over many years], and am not convinced, as I also base my beliefs on a deep study of human male/female creation, which also leads me to believe in complete male-female equality [so I am not a fundamentalist]].

Please will some take what is being said, in the opening post, in a non-cynical way, and maybe try to love back as some want to love them.