Exgay activist Tim Wilkins held a one-day conference titled “More Than Words” in Cleveland, Ohio, on July 8. He plans another one August 12 in Raleigh, N.C.
The theme of his lecture tour is that antihomosexual Christians should not waste much time in a fruitless effort to “talk” a gay person out of his or her homosexuality. Instead, they should “walk” the person out of it.
Does Wilkins mean that actions speak louder than words — a noble sentiment — or does he fear that antigay individuals will lose an argument based on actual facts with their gay family member or friend?
Whatever. Ironically, Wilkins’ no-talk theme does not stop him from talking up the imagined existence of “gay theology” — a strawman that Wilkins ridicules as though he were refuting the actual beliefs of diverse gay people, for whom sexual orientation plays a insignificant role in spirituality.
Is Wilkins projecting his own personal conflation of sexuality, ideology, and spirituality onto other people? How do his audiences feel about their gay family members and friends being reduced to cookie-cutter stereotypes? And where in his publicity is there an acknowledgment that his own audience members may diverge greatly in theology?
Christians never want to consider the role of culture when trying to understand the Bible. Although its message of love is timeless, the Bible’s context must reflect the historical period of when it was recorded.
They only like to consider cultural relevance when passages refer to slavery, women, divorce, and Levitical laws. They can’t win an argument, which is why they don’t want to “talk” us out of it.
I think the gay relative/friend has a much better chance of “walking” the faux christian out of a chosen lifestyle of persecuting others in the name of the white baby Jesus.
Kevin said:
I think the gay relative/friend has a much better chance of “walking” the faux christian out of a chosen lifestyle of persecuting others in the name of the white baby Jesus.
While I am bewildered over the reason for your last comment, the first brings up an interesting question. You use, and have used, the term “faux Christian” which would mean false or fake Christian. Would you contend that one can not be a “real” Christian and at the same time believe that homosexual acts are sinful? Would such an assumption not be judgmental?
Where would that leave Grace, for instance, who posts here occasionally?
David Roberts
I think that anyone who persecutes others would be, by definition, a false Christian.
Of course, persecution is more than simply saying that certain activities are sin. Nonetheless, it does seem to me that many of the ex-gay ministries go beyond declarations of faith, and even beyond condemnation, and actively persecute people. If lobbying to pass laws that will materially negatively impact the daily lives, employment, health, and liberties of gay persons (or any persons) is not persecution, then I’m not sure what is.
Timothy Kincaid said:
I think that anyone who persecutes others would be, by definition, a false Christian.
I’m not sure I am prepared to pronounce that judgment on anyone, but it does seem to be an interesting question. There have to be a significant number of people out there who are simply mistaken or misled, and believe that homosexual acts are sinful and all the rest. If so, this would lead to the sense that it is something to be discouraged and fought against like any other “evil.”
Certainly there are those who clearly act with hatred and malice, and who are close enough to the issue to know better. But like all matters of humanity, there must be a lot of gray in there and I’m not sure we acknowledge that. As you and I and a lot of others can attest to, wrestling with matters of faith can be very, very tough. Think of how difficult it must be for some people to break away from those deep seated doctrines when it can be so difficult for those of us who are ourselves gay.
Can you be Christian and not have it all figured out correctly? Perhaps in this case Joe Brummer’s approach would net more understanding, i.e. trying to teach someone rather than call them a “faux Christian” because they don’t get it. I’m not trying to excuse anyone, that’s not my job anymore than condemning them is. It just strikes me that people do change and how they are approached may have a lot to do with that.
David Roberts
David,
I agree with everything you said.
Nonetheless, persecuting others is about as opposite as you can get to the teachings of Christ.
I would say that history has shown that those who persecute in the name of Christ do the greatest harm to Christianity: crusades, inquisition, witch hunts, slavery, racial inequality; those were all low points in our shared religous heritage. Only time will tell if the current efforts to persecute gays by certain religous leaders will shame the body of Christ.
Of course, as I said above, having a religious view that sees homosexuality as sin is not equivalent to persecution. However, suing to take away the health insurance of the dependents of employees of Michigan State University (for example) IS persecution.
https://www.family.org/cforum/news/a0041182.cfm
It is not an economic decision, it is not a morality decision (no one really thinks providing health care is immoral), it is purely a punitive decision designed to bring hardship to the lives of gay people. It is cruel. It is inhumane. It is a majority abusing a minority simply because they can. It is the very antithesis of everything Jesus taught.
I personally do not think that anyone who seeks to take away health care has a healthy relationship with Christ. I know it’s judgmental, but I just can’t see it.
Obviously only God knows the heart of Gary Glenn, president of American Family Association of Michigan, but it’s hard for me to see Christ in what he is trying to do.
Timothy Kincaid said:
Obviously only God knows the heart of Gary Glenn, president of American Family Association of Michigan, but it’s hard for me to see Christ in what he is trying to do.
Agreed.
David Roberts
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother…
— Matthew 10:34-35
Christians: Is this a false quote or something?
It’s not a false quote, but obviously Jesus was being metaphorical there, or the context of the quote matters, unlike all those passages in the Qu’ran that Islamophobes like to cherry-pick.
Quote: “However, suing to take away the health insurance of the dependents of employees of Michigan State University (for example) IS persecution.”
Added to this is the fact that the ones who were pushing for the state amendment that started this push for taking away benefits specifically said the amendment was not intended for that purpose, just “protecting marriage.” I call that lying, and that is obviously not a Fruit of the Spirit.
Here in California, the Campaign for California Families sued to strip various domestic partner benefits based on Prop. 22 that passed in 2000.
The court used their own commercials and ballot statements against them saying “that’s not what you said when you were proposing this law”.
They lost.