Since a number of people have been responding to the blog "I'm Christian, unless You're Gay," and the response to it, "A Teen's Brave Response," I thought I'd better take a look at them.
The articles are well-intentioned. The blog author is right that it is important to love. But there are so many misconceptions in both of the posts, and pretty much every point of view expressed by the various people in those two posts is wrong.
The author is wrong in his understanding of what it means when a person says, "I'm Christian."
The mom is wrong in how she felt as a Christian before she knew her son was gay.
The mom is also wrong in how she felt after she found out her son was gay.
And the teen is wrong about how he expects Christians should treat him as a gay.
First, saying "I'm Christian" doesn't mean, "I'm going to be kind to you." It also doesn't mean, "Hey, whatever you do is your own business; it's OK by me; I love everyone, so let's just be friends." And it doesn't even mean "I try to adhere to the great moral teachings of a wise teacher." No, "I'm Christian" means "I have been saved from the consequences of my sinfulness by Jesus Christ, and I now have a personal relationship with him." And if that changes when we encounter people who are different from us, then we are not truly Christians. The examples of so-called Christians cited in the blog, who are unkind to gays or who say they hate them, are very poor examples of Christians.
Second, the mom, as a Christian, was wrong to feel hatred towards gays or to think they were evil just because of being gays. Christians ought to know that every single person on earth, gay or not, is sinful; there is no difference between them. They ought to know that every single person, gay or not, needs Jesus Christ. Christians ought to know as well that no one is any worse than anyone else; that no one deserves to be hated. Without exception, Christians ought to know that everyone deserves to be offered the love of God. Jesus died for gays and Jesus died for heterosexuals. He loves them all and does not think of people in categories. Hatred against people, gay or not, is not open to Christians. It is a sin for Christians to hate.
Third, when the mom found out that her son was gay, she was wrong to suddenly totally accept everything her son did. She was right to want to express love to him. But she was wrong not to want to guide his actions. Christians, if they truly follow Jesus' teachings, should not suddenly change their minds about what is a sin just because they know someone nice who does it. Christians can love people while still expressing disapproval of sinful behavior. Parents do this all the time with their children. It is no different with sexual behavior than it is with anything else. One can express disapproval of a child's sexual behavior and guide the child away from it without hating the child.
Fourth, the teen, and many other LGBTQ people, expect that Christians (and everyone else) should treat them not only with love, but with approval of everything they do. In essence, LGBTQ people are asking Christians to change their beliefs so that LGBTQ people can live their lives the way they want without having to hear that anyone thinks that they are wrong. This is unfair and, in fact, hypocritical, because the LGBTQ people are telling Christians that the Christians are wrong. In a truly tolerant society, everyone would have to put up with hearing someone say that they were wrong, and no one should feel hated just because someone says they are wrong.
I would actually like to know where Jacob, and this teen, live, because I certainly do not know any towns where everyone hates gays. But I do know that in Western culture recently there has been a vociferous effort to make Christians stop stating that they believe that homosexual sex is wrong.
"I'm Christian, unless You're Gay" says this: "...sin is a very personal thing! It always has been and it always will be! And it has nothing to do with love. Absolutely nothing. Disparity and difference have nothing to do with love. We shouldn't choose who we will love and who we won't."
This makes several incorrect assumptions about Christian beliefs about sin. First, it assumes that it is only disparity and difference that constitute sin for Christians. Instead, Christians view as sin what the Bible has called sin.
Second, it assumes that when Christians call a behavior sinful, they have chosen not to love the person engaging in that behavior. There are two parts to that assumption: 1) the assumption that one could not love a person if one says their behavior is wrong; and, 2) the assumption that it is not loving to correct someone.
The first part of that assumption is proved wrong by all the times a loving parent tells a child their behavior is wrong. Since the parent has told the child about the wrong behavior, has the parent chosen not to love the child? The statement, "We shouldn't choose who we will love and who we won't," referring to disapproving of homosexual sex, is incorrect.
The second part of that assumption is proved wrong if you take into account the Christian belief that living one's life the way God has designed it to be lived will lead to greater happiness. In that case, telling people how to live the way Christians believe God has told us to live is indeed loving--Christians are trying to show people a happier way to live. It is not the case that urging people not to sin has nothing to do with love. Instead, seen from the Christian point of view, it has everything to do with love.
It is sad to me when I see articles such as "I'm Christian, unless You're Gay." This is not only because there are so many hurting people like the teen in the response. It is also because there are so many misunderstandings that lead to discord. If only people would truly listen to those who differ with them, rather than reacting with their first emotions. There would be much less hurt, even if we didn't all agree.
Showing posts with label homosexuality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label homosexuality. Show all posts
Saturday, April 14, 2012
Friday, October 3, 2008
Presbyterians in Wonderland
Imagine that your car has been stolen, and you find out who took it--let's say it's someone named X. Then picture the following scenario: You go to the police and make a complaint. The police investigate, and determine that the facts are as you have reported them: your car is no longer at your house, but is at X's house. But, the police say, they cannot charge X with theft. They explain that the title to the car shows that the car belongs to you. Since the title clearly shows that the car is yours, X cannot possibly possess your car. Therefore they cannot charge X with stealing it, since it is not possible for X to acquire possession of something that X cannot possess.
At this point you would certainly think that the police were in collusion with X, or that you had somehow stumbled, like Alice, into Wonderland.
A similar thing has just happened in the PC(USA). The Rev. Janet Edwards, who officiated in 2005 at a marriage ceremony between two women, has been acquitted in ecclesiastical court of performing a marriage between two women. She has been acquitted by the Pittsburgh Permanent Judicial Commission because the Presbyterian constitution defines marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman. Therefore, says the PJC, since the constitution says a marriage is only between a man and a woman, Edwards could not possibly have performed a marriage ceremony between two women, and so she cannot be charged with it.
This is the same so-called reasoning that was used earlier this year by the GA PJC to acquit the Rev. Janie Spahr of performing a same-sex marriage ceremony.
Just as in my hypothetical example above, either the PJCs are grasping at any way they can find to get an acquittal, because that's the side they're on, or the PC(USA) has stumbled into some sort of Wonderland.
Justice is no longer obtainable in the PC(USA), it seems.
We must all hope that this sort of reasoning does not spread to the criminal courts, or no law will be enforceable.
______________
Since first writing this post, another analogy has occurred to me. Human trafficking is a problem today, and unfortunately sometimes instances of it are discovered in the United States. The U.S. Constitution prohibits slavery. Suppose it were discovered that some people had been enslaved somewhere in the U.S. When those people were rescued and freed, we would expect that the people who had enslaved them would be charged with a crime. But according to the reasoning used by the PJCs described above, it could be possible for the authorities to say that since slavery is prohibited by our constitution, it is impossible for anyone in the U.S. to enslave anyone else. Therefore no one can be charged with enslaving anyone, because slavery in the U.S. is impossible.
Such an analogy shows how ridiculous and unfair these PJC rulings are.
At this point you would certainly think that the police were in collusion with X, or that you had somehow stumbled, like Alice, into Wonderland.
A similar thing has just happened in the PC(USA). The Rev. Janet Edwards, who officiated in 2005 at a marriage ceremony between two women, has been acquitted in ecclesiastical court of performing a marriage between two women. She has been acquitted by the Pittsburgh Permanent Judicial Commission because the Presbyterian constitution defines marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman. Therefore, says the PJC, since the constitution says a marriage is only between a man and a woman, Edwards could not possibly have performed a marriage ceremony between two women, and so she cannot be charged with it.
This is the same so-called reasoning that was used earlier this year by the GA PJC to acquit the Rev. Janie Spahr of performing a same-sex marriage ceremony.
Just as in my hypothetical example above, either the PJCs are grasping at any way they can find to get an acquittal, because that's the side they're on, or the PC(USA) has stumbled into some sort of Wonderland.
Justice is no longer obtainable in the PC(USA), it seems.
We must all hope that this sort of reasoning does not spread to the criminal courts, or no law will be enforceable.
______________
Since first writing this post, another analogy has occurred to me. Human trafficking is a problem today, and unfortunately sometimes instances of it are discovered in the United States. The U.S. Constitution prohibits slavery. Suppose it were discovered that some people had been enslaved somewhere in the U.S. When those people were rescued and freed, we would expect that the people who had enslaved them would be charged with a crime. But according to the reasoning used by the PJCs described above, it could be possible for the authorities to say that since slavery is prohibited by our constitution, it is impossible for anyone in the U.S. to enslave anyone else. Therefore no one can be charged with enslaving anyone, because slavery in the U.S. is impossible.
Such an analogy shows how ridiculous and unfair these PJC rulings are.
Friday, June 27, 2008
How Do We Love Our Neighbor?
(This post was originally written for Presbyterian Action's General Assembly blog.)
Wednesday morning at General Assembly I had the chance to listen to a short talk by the Bible scholar Robert Gagnon, who is the foremost authority on the Bible and homosexuality. He reiterated some important points in the ongoing debate.
Often people will say that since Jesus hung out with prostitutes, who are we to judge anyone? Jesus didn't condemn them, so neither should we. They use this argument by extension to say that Jesus did not condemn homosexual activity.
Dr. Gagnon pointed out, however, that the reason that Jesus hung out with these people was not that sexual sin was so inconsequential; it was rather that their sin was so serious that they needed his personal attention in order to be rescued from it. So he hung out with them, but not merely to say to them, "You're fine just as you are." Instead, he said, "Repent, and sin no more." He said this because he loved them so much. He loved them so much that he wanted them to live, and it was only through their repentance, their turning from sin, that they could find life.
One important way that we love our neighbors as Jesus did is by pointing them away from their sin--from what is injurious to them--and towards life. But Dr. Gagnon said that if we don't know what is injurious to them, we can't know how to love them. In fact, we may actually act in a way that is in truth hateful towards them, if we don't know what is injurious to them. So we need to know what the Bible tells us: that sexual activity outside of marriage between one man and one woman is sin, and that sin is injurious to us.
In Ezekiel 13:19b it says "By telling my people lies they wish to hear, you bring death to those who should not die." This is something that we need to remember. Love isn't just saying, "I love you. You're special. You're fine the way you are. Do what feels right to you." People do want to hear that; they don't want to hear that their behavior is wrong. But hearing these "lies they wish to hear," and believing them, brings them death, and they should not die. So telling them lies is not love; it is hate. Instead, love is reaching out and bringing our neighbors back from the brink of the pit.
Dr. Gagnon said that if we speak this truth in order to extend this love, we will doubtless be abused by those who disagree with us. But, as he said, behind us lies the cross; before us is the Lamb who was slain. We must go ahead and bear the abuse for the sake of our neighbors and our Lord.
Wednesday morning at General Assembly I had the chance to listen to a short talk by the Bible scholar Robert Gagnon, who is the foremost authority on the Bible and homosexuality. He reiterated some important points in the ongoing debate.
Often people will say that since Jesus hung out with prostitutes, who are we to judge anyone? Jesus didn't condemn them, so neither should we. They use this argument by extension to say that Jesus did not condemn homosexual activity.
Dr. Gagnon pointed out, however, that the reason that Jesus hung out with these people was not that sexual sin was so inconsequential; it was rather that their sin was so serious that they needed his personal attention in order to be rescued from it. So he hung out with them, but not merely to say to them, "You're fine just as you are." Instead, he said, "Repent, and sin no more." He said this because he loved them so much. He loved them so much that he wanted them to live, and it was only through their repentance, their turning from sin, that they could find life.
One important way that we love our neighbors as Jesus did is by pointing them away from their sin--from what is injurious to them--and towards life. But Dr. Gagnon said that if we don't know what is injurious to them, we can't know how to love them. In fact, we may actually act in a way that is in truth hateful towards them, if we don't know what is injurious to them. So we need to know what the Bible tells us: that sexual activity outside of marriage between one man and one woman is sin, and that sin is injurious to us.
In Ezekiel 13:19b it says "By telling my people lies they wish to hear, you bring death to those who should not die." This is something that we need to remember. Love isn't just saying, "I love you. You're special. You're fine the way you are. Do what feels right to you." People do want to hear that; they don't want to hear that their behavior is wrong. But hearing these "lies they wish to hear," and believing them, brings them death, and they should not die. So telling them lies is not love; it is hate. Instead, love is reaching out and bringing our neighbors back from the brink of the pit.
Dr. Gagnon said that if we speak this truth in order to extend this love, we will doubtless be abused by those who disagree with us. But, as he said, behind us lies the cross; before us is the Lamb who was slain. We must go ahead and bear the abuse for the sake of our neighbors and our Lord.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
