Can a person be both gay and Christian? It’s an important question that has only begun receiving serious attention over the last couple of decades. Many evangelical Christians would respond with a flat “no” and refuse to engage the question further. Exodus International’s answer is a bit more nuanced, but the strong implication one nonetheless gets from most ex-gay publications is that individuals who accept a “gay identity” (even the celibate, sometimes) are just kidding themselves if they think they’ll one day join the chosen few in paradise.
So what, then, is a Christian? Many evangelicals would respond that it involves having a “personal relationship” with Christ, beginning with the act of asking him into one’s heart. In theory it’s as simple as that, though in practice one is then supposed to begin changing one’s behavior to better conform to Christ’s example. In theory (again), that transformation is supposed to be an outgrowth of one’s relationship with Christ, but in practice outward appearances are usually all that matters; one merely needs to agree with a checklist of do’s and don’ts, accompanied by a properly liberal use of Christianese terms and Bible verses in one’s speech, to be regarded in your average church as a “good Christian.”
Even setting aside the gap between theory and practice that exists in many churches, we quickly run into a dilemma when we realize that different Christian sects have different ideas about what makes a person a Christian. Is it enough to say the sinner’s prayer and join a church? Which beliefs does a person have to agree with? How many (and which) good deeds, if any, does a person need to perform? What role does the sacrament of communion play? How important is baptism? Is confession before a priest/minister necessary, or can one confess directly to God? Does denomination matter? Can Christians lose their salvation, and if so, how? Disagreements over these and many other questions have fueled a thousand schisms.
On the positive side, many evangelical groups are beginning to move toward a more ecumenical definition of their faith, centered around the Nicene and Apostles’ creeds and allowing for disagreement on matters of doctrine not found in those creeds. In theory, agreement is only necessary on the “essentials” spelled out in the creeds for a person to be considered a Christian.
In practice, most evangelical groups still have “hot button” issues that they treat as being comparable in importance to core tenets like the divinity of Christ, including (but not limited to) Biblical inerrancy, the historicity of the early chapters of Genesis, and, of course, homosexuality. “Liberal” Christians who challenge the party line on these issues aren’t necessarily unsaved, but license is granted to question the authenticity of their faith.
But is it fair, or even biblical, to use such issues as litmus tests for determining who is and isn’t a Christian? John 3:16, after all, merely states that “whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.” It’s supposedly as simple as that – no doctrinal litmus tests, no laundry lists of rules – yet the church is constantly trying to complicate it with an endless list of disclaimers, qualifications and additions.
In the case of homosexuality, 1 Cor. 6:9 is cited as proof that “practicing homosexuals” are all going to hell. The other “clobber passages” come into play as well, but this is the verse that can be interpreted to directly suggest that individuals in gay relationships may be in danger of losing their salvation.
Setting aside the very serious contextual and linguistic questions that surround the meanings of the two words (malakoi and arsenokoitai) that some modern translators have rendered as “homosexual offenders” (or the like), it’s worth noting that homosexuality is often the only alleged sin given attention when this passage is cited. If Christians who commit any of these sins are truly in danger of losing their salvation, why wouldn’t the church be more concerned about the entire list? Two groups in particular stand out:
The greedy. Sometimes translated as ‘the covetous,’ this sin appears far more often on Paul’s “vice lists” than the arsenokoitai do, and yet the sin of greed gets a far softer touch in most evangelical churches. Granted, ‘greed’ is a somewhat abstract concept, but it was obviously an important subject for the biblical authors, given how frequently economic injustice is condemned in both the Old and New Testaments.
And how many middle-class evangelicals are mortgaged to the hilt for the sake of having a fancy home, a pair of SUV’s and the latest electronic toys, while giving little or nothing to charitable causes? It’s not necessarily a sin to own nice things, but what does it say about a person when those purchases take priority over meeting the needs of the less fortunate?
Adulterers. According to Christ’s own words, anyone who divorces and remarries is an adulterer (Matt. 5:32, 19:9; Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18). This is not a single act of adultery, but an ongoing state, since God does not recognize the dissolution of the original marriage bond (1 Cor. 7:39). Matthew does allow for divorce in the case of unfaithfulness (the other gospel writers don’t), but the only allowance made for remarriage in the New Testament is the death of the first spouse.
Many modern theologians have “discovered” that remarriage following divorce really is okay, at least under certain circumstances, but their reasoning is considerably weaker than that used by pro-gay theologians (whom they would accuse of twisting scripture to “justify an immoral lifestyle”), given that they have to overcome the explicitly worded statements of Christ himself.
Despite that, we have yet to see any promotion of “ex-adulterer” groups to support those who choose to submit to God’s perfect plan by leaving their sinful second marriages and living celibately until such time as they can reconcile with their original spouse. But surely this should be a priority for evangelicals, given the gravity of such a sin and how commonly it’s practiced within the church.
Or maybe we’re missing the point entirely by assuming that Christ freed us from one legalistic system so that he could impose another on us. Evangelicals prefer to speak in terms such as “God’s design” and “God’s best,” of course, but the demand for conformity is just as strong as it is within any explicitly legalistic group.
If we are going to decide who is and isn’t a Christian based on performance, however, we could do no better than to use the words of Christ himself:
“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
“The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’
“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
“They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
“He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” (Matt. 25:34-46, NIV)
We’ll go first, in all flippancy, and then clear the deck for those who want to be more serious and give Eugene’s post the thoughts/perspectives etc that it deserves.
Taking a page from the Exodus hymnbook…
The fact that they still face Mecca and pray fives times a day is not important.They are christian-identified. QED, therefore they are.
Thanks for posting this!
Because I am a Believer in Jesus the Christ, I do let others identify me as a “Christian;” but, it is not biblical to self-identify by the Greek-speaking pagan created epithet “Christian” (“Christianos” in Greek). People Antioch, Syria coined the word to apply to those who preached about the Anointed (Christos). The epithet “Christianos” is only used 3 times in the Greek Version of the New Testament.
1) The first time it is used in the passive voice: They were first called Christians at Antioch. See Acts 11.
2) The second time was after Paul gave his testimony to King Agrippa who said in words to this effect, “Do you think that after telling me all of that in a short time, you can convince me to become a Christian.” See Acts 26
3) The last time is in the 1st Epistle of Peter where he writes if you are being called by the epithet Christian and you are living right for the Lord, then count it an honor to be identified by that name. 1 Peter 4.
I am giving the whole chapter locations where the above are located so that readers can look up the complete context in which they were written.
According to the Greek Language and Literature experts, the Apostle Paul is the only writer known to have used the word “arsenokoitai.” From what I know about gender in Greek, I say that since the suffix of the word is “ai,” it has to be a feminine plural noun. If arseno is supposed to mean “male” and koit is supposed to mean “bed,” then it is females who take a male to bed with them. That would imply that Paul is referring to women with lose morals.
I will post at least one other additional comment to the OP above.
The real followers of Jesus during the 1st Century AD self-identified by the use of the word “Believer,” which literally meant “Faith” in Greek. They did not call what they believed “Christianity;” they called it “The Way.” In fact, the Apostle Paul referred to the group to which the Believers belong as “The Way” a number of times.
In regard to the word “malakoi, it is the plural of malakos which literally means “soft.” Jesus used that word to refer to the “soft” (expensive) clothing worn by those who lived in king’s palaces. I think that the context in which Paul used it referred to those who were either soft-headed or lazy. The KJV translates the word as “effeminate.” In 1611, the “e” word did not mean so much “like a woman” but, “kept like a woman who did not have to work and all of the persons needs were provided for.” Using that explanation, it make more sense in the context in which Paul used it.
Maybe none of us are as much the good christians as we wish we were, and maybe all of us could use a lot more humility about our own sense of worthiness!
When you study the parables and sayings of Jesus in context we actually see that Jesus was turning 1st century Judaism upside down, totally re-arranging the priorities from legalism to love. Yet in the last 75 years popular christianity has been re-interpreted to make abortion and homosexuality the supreme definers of the faith. I think there is a constant ebb and flow in religion from love to law, but make no mistake, Jesus put love first!
-Adulterers. According to Christ’s own words, anyone who divorces and remarries is an adulterer (Matt. 5:32, 19:9; Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18). This is not a single act of adultery, but an ongoing state, since God does not recognize the dissolution of the original marriage bond (1 Cor. 7:39). Matthew does allow for divorce in the case of unfaithfulness (the other gospel writers don’t), but the only allowance made for remarriage in the New Testament is the death of the first spouse.
The above quoted from the OP is something that I post a lot where Bible-Clobbers, aka Bible-thumpers post messages.
It is rather interesting that some of the most homophobic preachers and government legislators who are outspoken against same-sex marriage have been married more than once. I know the history of a pastor in San Antonio, TX who has TV programs and he was having an affair with a woman in the church while he had a wife. He divorced his wife so that he could marry his lover. And, it is interesting how much support he gets from the “Christian” Charismatics; but, most of them don’t know that he did that.
We have state and federal lawmakers who have living former spouses and they have taken their Bibles to the floor of where they vote for laws in their state or in DC, and thumped them, literally, claiming their Bible did not approve of homosexuals and definitely not gay marriages.
I do not judge anyone who has been divorced and remarried and is a Believer in Jesus; but, IMO, those folks who are anti-gay when it comes to equal rights under the Constitution of the USA have no right to use a Bible as the reason for denying us those rights. I can go into a long argument as to why the Consitution is NOT a Christian document.
In effect, since the Consitution of the USA guarantees equal rights for all law-abiding citizens, gays should have the same right as the “straights.” When I was growing up in the 1950s and early 1960s in the NE corner of the SW USA (Oklahoma), “straight” was used for persons who did what was legal and morally right and “gay” just meant “happy” and “colorful.”
Grace makes one “Christian” — it’s a gift of God.
One last comment here in regard to the Matthew text cited.
Jesus is talking about himself as “King” in the text and he will be doing the judgment in the end of all things as we currently know it.
I have done everything that those accepted into Jesus’ Kingdom did. Not bragging, just fact. I was taught to do all of those things by my parents by example. They did not tell us that the Bible said to do them; they just did them without even say why.
“The Christ” is actually Jesus’ heavenly position title as the Son of God. “Christ” is not a proper name, theologically speaking. He was given a rather common human name (he was not the only “Jesus” in Israel in 6 BC – 30 AD) so that other humans could self-identify with him.
I find it interesting that folks will read something from the Gospels, the book of Acts and/or the Book of Revelation where the text literally has “Jesus said:” but, when they discuss what they just read, they will say, “Christ said.” But, “Christ said” is not in the Bible. Besides Jesus was not big on being addressed by position titles and he did not approve of religious folks who liked to be called by them either.
Note to Michael Bussee: Is there a way that I can have a private conversation with you? I have been following the history of Exodus almost ever since it was started. I found out about Exodus when the first article about it was printed in the Assembly of God’s weekly magazine, “The Pentecostal Evangel.”
I don’t call myself an “ex-gay” since I had not self-identified as “gay” during my closeted homosexual days. Part of my personal testimony, including how God the Father outed me to myself, is in the blog of my MySpace Profile.
I have received comments for a special person here which was sent to my email address connected with this forum.
I was active in even local church lay leadership positions with the AG until I left the closet in March 1984. I am now attending a special kind of AG ministry here in Tulsa. The pastor has no problem with me being openly gay and he is doing a weekly teaching on acceptance. Included in that is gender and even sexual orientation which will be eventually discussed. Jeff, the pastor, sort of outed me the first evening he started that series.
Here is a link to the church’s website, which shows how unique it is, especially for Tulsa, Oklahoma:
Agora Church It also has a coffehouse with computer terminals and Wi-Fi, too.
It’s really all quite simple. A Christian is whatever James Dobson says it is.
Joe Allen Doty wrote, “In regard to the word “malakoi, it is the plural of malakos which literally means “soft.”
The Berkeley translation of the New Testament used the word “voluptuous.” Again giving the idea of soft or as a friend who was a candidate for a doctorate in Greek and Semetic Languages at Bob Jones before he was outed “moraly soft.” In modern times the word brings to mind the voluptuous women painted by Ruben.
Berkeley was a distinquished professor of Greek at Wheaton.
But all of this discussiion about gays and the Bible brings up the question of why should gays or anybody be concerned about what the Bible say since it is a book of myths and there is little evidence that Jesus ever lived.
And if he did live, anyone who wants true liberation in Jesus Christ must realize he was only a man not a divine saviour.
I am a gay man who will be 70 in August and it took me many years and much study to shake loose the fetters of religion and enjoy true freedom.
People say “The Bible tells how you can be a born-again Christian.” Well, there are NO instructions for “Christians” in the Bible; and literally, Jesus said to those who asked about inheriting eternal life, “You must be born-from-above.” The two guys who asked thought Jesus meant “born-again” as in being born a 2nd time.
PhD psychologist James Dobson is NOT a preacher and he has not been ordained by any church denomination. Dobson said that Sponge Bob Squarepants was gay, too. He is/was ignorant about the gender of sponges, too
I do not consider the Bible to be a book of myths. But, my faith is not in the book put together officially in 397 AD by a committee; my faith is in Christ Jesus.
Jesus was more than “only a man;” physically speaking, until he rose from the dead, he was 100 per cent human. But, spiritually speaking, he was also 100 per cent the Son of God the father.
How can one get true liberation in Jesus the Christ if one believes he was only a man? That statement makes no sense at all.
The language to which you, Donn Darling, were referring is “Semitic” as in the language of the Semites, the decendents of Shem, the son of Noah. (The word only has one “e” in it.
I am not fettered by religion, which is based on a set of rules made up by human beings. Jesus set me free from following rules made for a specific group of people.
Donn, your input is welcome but please don’t smear an entire religion because you yourself do not consider it valid. You are free to believe or not believe as you see fit, but we want everyone to feel safe here and that includes a lot of people who are faithful. Statements like yours are arrogant, and differ little from those who might insist that you are bound for hell. Neither has any place here.
Joe, please don’t start down the road of defending your faith here, we absolutely will not entertain those discussions. You got your comment in before I could respond to Donn so I understand your desire to respond, but that is precisely why we don’t allow comments like his in the first place. Arguments over whose faith, if any, is correct are to be taken elsewhere.
Thanks.
David Roberts
Although I am not much of a theologian, I do know for a fact that God loves everyone including gays and lesbians. You see about 7 months ago I tried to commit suicide after being outed. I was going to a MCC church at the time. I did not die! God with his infinite love for me saved my life. As a open gay man I know that God loves me and all people gay or straight. We are all one with the Lord.
Tim: I am glad the Lord kept you safe. He loves ALL his kids and will never forsake you. I am glad you are “not much of a theologian”. Try to keep it that way. Your relationship with God is what matters. Theology tends to mess with your head.
Just a quick note here: I was blessed by getting a chance to talk to The Man, Michael Bussee, just a little while ago on the phone. He let me know how to contact him. I told him that I have been using his name for quite a few years. Michael verified as fact some of the things I had known about his work with Exodus and when he had started doing ex-gay “ministry.”
I have lots of more things to discuss with him; because I have told Jeff, my buddy and pastor, that I am willing to continue to be a “pastor-at-large” with the Tulsa, Oklahoma community and work with him in ministry to reach gays and lesbians who have been through similiar things which I have been through.
A former pastor of an MCC had told me in 1994 that I should be a pastor-at-large to the Tulsa community rather request to be ordained by MCC since MCC needed pastors, meaning if that happened I would be sent elsewhere and she felt that Tulsa needed me more. Since she told me that, I had to be a pastor for men who had AIDS and did not have a pastor or even a church which would accept them. In one situation, I was able to help Gary, a friend in the Hospital, because I acted as more than his friend, I was his pastor and knowing the hospital chaplain helped me help him and his family. If I had just been Gary’s friend, they would not have told me what I needed to know as a go-between the hospital and his family.
I will be contacting Michael in the future to let him know what I am doing here in my “Jerusalem” as a worker for the Spirit of Truth and the Lord.
David,
If I had waited until you had replied to Donn, I would not have attempted to “defend my faith” here in cyberspace. I appreciate what you are doing here. Thanks.
Eugene–great post. As a Christian who also happens to be queer, I run into a lot of intolerance from many sides. In fact, sometimes I find it harder to come out Cristian among queer folks than to come out gay among church folks.
For me I claim the name Christian as my because I see that not one group has the monopoly over the term. It is similar to when I travel to Europe and identify as American. That doesn’t mean I buy into all the crap my country has done.
Thanks Eugene.
I find it interesting that those of you who believe your god is real consider it “smearing an entire religion” for an atheist to say he is make-believe. If it is, then isn’t it equally true that every post you make about god being real must be an attack on us atheists?
You can’t have it both ways. If saying we are atheist (meaning we believe or know that god is make-believe) is a slander to your religion, then holding the contrary position is a slander to us.
As for the original question of whether one can be both Christian and gay . . . of course one can — but why would one want to (IMO)? Speaking as an ex-Christian, I can say with confidence that coming to terms with my innate (some would say god-given) homosexuality helped me to also come to terms with (and ability to abandon) what seems to me to be the inherent problem of religious belief.
If you look at all the Greek uses of malakos/malakoi on Tufts University’s Perseus site (which was hacked in April and is not now available), the only one alluding to effeminancy was a reference to music. The word in reference to morals has always meant soft in terms of not a rigid adherance to such morals; thus it has no meaning in reference to homosexuality whatsoever.
I believe if you look at the copy of 1 Cor 6:9 found in 1 Tim 1:10 you get a better understanding from the context therein. There the word arsenokoitai is used along with other words meaning whoring, seeking out prostitutes. It seems rather clear to me from that context that Paul was speaking then of male prostitution, likely in a form simiilar to that of the old Canaanite temple prostitution, the qadesh.
With that interpretation in hand you can pretty much wipe Romans 1 away from speaking of homosexuality as a sexual orientation in nature; unless your Christian sect demands that homosexual orientation doesn’t exist in nature (which indeed the Bible doesn’t recognize as existing). Paul says these people give up their nature, that doesn’t match with gay folk. And again the association with idolotrous practice places such activities that Paul describes as akin to that of the qadesh. Well, that wipes out the New testament.
In the old testament the stuff in 1 Kings and the one reference in Deuteronomy has been mistranslated by many producers of Bibles as “sodomites” when the word is qadesh – the holy person/temple prostitute of Canaanite worship practices. I’ll next jump to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. I once challenged a Biblical scholar to show me where one homosexually-oriented person existed in either town. He couldn’t; although he wanted to claim that all were homosexuals [which is outlandishly strange].
The story of Sodom and Gomorrah has an interesting parallel with two archaeological sites whose towns were destroyed in a massive earthquake with as much as 160 feet of vertical fault movement at the surface. However, unlike the Bible towns, Bab edh-Dhra and Numeira were inhabited post-disaster and there is no evidence for anyone to have died during the episode. In fact, no personal articles other than large amphora were found in the towns associated with damage by the quakes, indicating perhaps that the people had notice from earlier minor tremors and had moved out of their towns into the open.
The writers of the Bible coming from a more pastoral and bedouin background (hapiru?) and thus being “outsiders” as concern cities could easily sieze upon the destruction of these cities as a sign of their god’s retribution. Much the same attitude existed in rural, farming America concerning larger cities when I grew up in the 50s & 60s. In my region, even a modest city of perhaps 35,000 at the time, Terre Haute, Indiana, was known as “Sin City.”
If the history of Sodom and the ‘Cities of the Plain’ is accurate in Genesis, then these towns were attacked and their people carried off, only to be returned by Abraham. The archaeology of Bab edh-Dhra and Numeira supports an attack prior to their destruction by earthquake; however, archaeology does not have the Medes attacking any further west than the Euphrates valley. Thus that part of the story might be the conquest of Ur by Medes. At any rate in the Bible story the citizens of Sodom had reason to be rather paranoid, perhaps even of the cousin of the man who had refused the normal booty for freeing their citizenry. Bronze age man (whether straight or gay) had a practice of sodomizing a vanquished foe on the battlefield as a way of showing dominance (and yet allowing the enemy to live – in shame). We don’t know the motivation of the citizens of Sodom, but that dominance display could be one reason. I can’t find anyone of a homosexually-oriented nature in Sodom.
But then there’s Leviticus…. man, you can’t get around Leviticus by stating it only applies to priests or that Levitican sexual mores no longer apply when so many of them do in our modern time. Leviticus is the spoiler. Unless someone has some other idea.
Tom, calling someone’s beliefs “make-believe” has, I think, a clear negative connotation. You call something make-believe when you don’t just want to say you think it’s not true but you also want to mock it or make it seem childish.
I don’t think that people of faith are asking too much when they ask that if you want to express that you don’t believe in their faith that you plainly say so instead of the unnecessary mockery.
And that does go both ways; I expect people of faith to be just as respectful of atheists as well. Nothing makes me cringe like when I hear religious extremists say that atheists are “blinded” or some such nonsense.
I would agree with zortnac. It is perfectly fine to say that you do not believe in God, but that is not what Donn did.
This is far more than just stating one is an atheist. He is scoffing, belittling and implying that he is superior because of his more evolved sensibilities. In a word, he is preaching (and giving his testimony to boot).
It’s also out of place. This site is devoted to monitoring the ex-gay movement, particularly ex-gay organizations. These are almost exclusively Christian based and so there is only a narrow range of topics under which the fact that someone is an atheist would be germane.
Essentially, that Donn or anyone else is an atheist does not make any difference but it may make our subject material less appealing. I spoke up not because he is an atheist or that he mentioned it, but because he was behaving rudely.
I guess timing is everything: FOTF’s CitizenLink has a story up today entitled Author Dispels Myth that Homosexuality is Compatible with Scripture, by Wendy Cloyd, CitizenLink assistant editor.
Excerpt:
It’s an interview piece with the author.
In that CitizenLink article, Author Dispels Myth that Homosexuality is Compatible with Scripture, Joe Dallas said:
I think he better cozy up to his psychologist friends in Focus and detail all those inborn indulgent needs to sin. I can’t think of any, save what a homosexual orientation would be so considered. I don’t think the pathology known as psychopathy is even considered inborn. These guys throw this out all the time. And while a tendency to offend might exist in some heritable form, there is no tendency to offend in any particular manner, such as that which a homosexual orientation would be. Thus this arguement doesn’t stand up. An inborn tendency is not towards sin, it is a true human nature.
David – Was Donn behaving any more rudely than a Christian that believes all other religious denominations followers are going to Hell? I mean, look at what he said. He called the Bible a book of myths, seemingly a reasonable position if one does not accept the Bible as any particular Word of God. He also rejected Jesus as God and Savior, again a seemingly normal position for his belief system. He also views religion as somewhat narrow minded, a perception many people on this site have expressed about more conservative evangelical denominations.
I actually thought that Donn had a very salient point. He seemed to be suggesting that not everyone is a Christian, and so debating religion with ex-gay groups is conceding that all gays are concerned with the state of their souls according to God.
Or, to look at it another way, many Christian groups have different views on different aspects of theology. Should a Catholic gay individual care what a protestant evangelical like James Dobson thinks? You can argue theology until you’re blue in the faith, but in the end isn’t it ultimately up to God what happens to any of us?
Ex-gay groups often become so insular because of their profession and message being based on faith rather than science and ideology rather than reality that truth is an abstract concept that becomes the Truth, a divine revelation that becomes the basis for their message. This insularity is what has been on display in recent days, from the Love in Action scandals with forced youth participation to the bizarre behavior of Richard Cohen to Charlene Cothran’s conversion. In a sense their faith has become their Achilles heel because they parody what most see as mainstream religion in this country.
Arguing theology then only seems to legitimize the point of view that Ex-gay groups are on the mainstream in terms of morality, a point I’d suggest the polls dispute, or at least provide a murky picture of consider the publics various positions on marriage, civil unions, adoptions, and a right to consensual sex.
My personal view, as I somewhat mentioned above is that whatever the truth is, only God knows the final Truth, and only He can determine whether an individual has led a good life, so debating theology is arguing angels and pinheads.
Kendall:
I believe I already answered that, but no, he wasn’t, and you don’t see us allowing that kind of statement either. To clarify, one can believe that if they like as long as they don’t preach it here. There is a big difference between personal belief, which is none of our business, and slapping others in the face with said belief, which is our business.
Exactly, that is the point – we aren’t going to argue. We discuss matters of faith because they are integral to the ex-gay movement, which is our scope. We don’t argue about which belief (or lack thereof) is more correct. This is beginning to get repetitive, so please let’s move on.
On last thing, if you look at the first comment in this thread you will see and example of how someone who does not share a faith can still respond respectfully to a discussion about it.
Ah, so you did mention the “hell bound” point. My mistake. Fair enough. And for the record I’m not an atheist (not that it matters either way I suppose).
Can a person be both a serial killer or a paedophile and a Christian?
Professer Jan Verhees from The Netherlands reports!
What a disgusting statement this is!
Can a person be gay and Christian.
Totally ridiculous!
Can a human being also be a serial killer and be a Christian.
Is your criterion is “It is all in the inside of my genes, so I have moral and lawful rights” , then it becomes quite easy to send this world to morl destruction.
Tout comprendre ce n’ est pas tout pardonner!
We understandthat you may be a gay man, or a paedophile or a serial killer, but this does not automatically entitles you to all the rights n o r m a l people have!
Moderator Note (DR): This commenter was previously banned, but this comment will be left as it is germane and reflects a certain segment of opinion on the issue.
sigh, now it’s going to get interesting. The ADF featured this post on their alert site. Expect more ‘drive-bys’ like that last post.
gay=paedophile=serial killer
Can one be a troll ans still be considered a christian?
BTW, I consider myself a follower of Christ Jesus, but I no longer use the term christian because of the political baggage that Dobson, the Republican party and hate groups like the ADF have encumbered it with.
If one looks of the historical (Strong’s) meanings of the names of Sodom and Gomorrah and uses logic, too, then one could assume that both of those places were “renamed” after they were destroyed. Sodom means “burning” and Gomorrah means “submersion” which is from the root word, amar, which means “heap.”
All of the book of Genesis was written down more than 400 years after the last thing mentioned happening in it. What is in Genesis was passed on by oral tradition. I know how the names of some places can be changed to describe what they were rather than what their original names were.
There is really no proof exactly where those 2 cities were located archaeologically. Some only assume they were near the salty Dead Sea since Lot’s wife was turned into a pillar of salt.
A convicted criminal can be a forgiven by God and through the power of the Holy Spirit be a real Believer in Jesus the Christ. But, then in God’s Book of Life, the person’s sin is no longer listed. That’s because when God forgives a person of his sin, spiritually speaking, the sin is forgotten by Him and is treated as though it never existed in the first place. But, God allows the person to remember what he, the convicted criminal, did the rest of his life.
Some Bible-thumpers try to claim that being a homosexual is like being a criminal, a drug addict and/or an alcoholic. But, one has no choice in regard to his sexual orientation; but, one has to choose to be a criminal, a drug addict and/or an alcoholic.
God has NEVER changed a person’s sexual orientation; but, I know for a fact that God has made alcoholics into ex-alcoholics (not recovering alcoholics) and drug addicts into ex-drug addicts (not recovering drug addicts). A recovering alcoholic can never touch anything with alcohol in it again; but, a healed by God ex-alcoholic can take medicine with alcohol in it and even communion wine and it not make him want to get drunk again. Chain smokers are addicted to the drug nicotine. My father was healed of his drinking and even smoking when he was saved and filled with the Holy Spirit.
Not trying to be preachy here; but, the ex-gay ministry myth has to be discussed with what really happens to folks when the power of the Holy Spirit of God is involved in a person’s life. And as an independent Pentecostal Evangelist (I am not ordained by a denominational church committee, but ordained the New Testament way by laying on of hands), my calling is to point folks to the real truth of the Gospel and what the power of the Holy Spirit is and does.
I find it very disturbing that those that claim moral supremacy clobber the GLBT community with the “if it is proven that genetics play a large role in determining one is gay, and they cannot change, that does not give them the right to act on their nature”. This is being said only because those on the Right said it is so and they claim that their authority for saying so is from the literal reading of the Bible without taking into account the time the Bible was written. Sadly, many Christians are using the Bible as sole source of faith when in fact it is the Holy Spirit that is the guider of all things of God. The Apostles and early Christians didn’t rely on a Bible to preach the Word. Nor to govern their other actions. It was the Holy Spirit.
What I also find really strange is this “Sanctity of Marriage” fiasco being dragged around by the Right. Like Eugene mentions that Divorce doesn’t seem to be a problem for most evangelical/fundie Christians which shows the hypocisy these people profess. They would be more believable when it came to the sanctity of marriage if they tried to pass ballot initiatives in all 50 states to make divorce illegal. Also, they would have to demand from divorcees in their congregations that they cannot remarry and must remain celibate the rest of their lives. Sound unreasonable? It does. But as Eugene pointed out Jesus spoke against divorce (except in cases of adultry) and remarriage. Why has this been cast aside by those that profess a literal interpretation of the Bible? Is it because the issue of divorce hits too close to home for these Christians? Or is it because they could not gather enough support and win with this issue? Makes you think doesn’t it?
From a Christian:
There are some things about you people would feel it is uneasy or unexplored; they would go to all means necessary to reallign your path to live up to their own standards of godly living, including finding all proof necessary in the Bible to change you to edify their own sense of self.
From a believer in Christ:
There are some things about you people would feel it is uneasy or unexplored; they would go to all means necessary to understand you and while living up to Christ’s standards of godly living, including finding all proof necessary in the Bible to revel in the sense of wonder of God’s creation.
The Christian salvation “formula” (for lack of a better word) is clearly laid out in Acts 2:37-38
“And hearing this, they were stabbed in the heart, and said to Peter and to the other apostles, Men, brothers, what shall we do? Then Peter said to them, ‘Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ to remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. ‘ ”
That being said, what is a Christian? Quite simply it is someone who chooses to follow the teachings of, and identify with, Christ.
Is it possible to be Christian and homosexual? Yes. I have personally studied the scriptures in their Hebrew and Greek texts (these are the languages used to write the bible) over the course of many years. I have found that scriptures concerning homosexuals (among many, many other scriptures regarding other issues) have been horribly twisted to meet the “needs” of the extreme fundamentalists.
There is NO condemnation of homosexuals in the bible. The only condemnation to be found concerns adultery and/or fornication.
It is possible for homosexuals to be Christian. But! that does not mean it is acceptable for these same Christian homosexuals to sleep around as they wish. If someone is going to be truly Christian, homosexual or otherwise, that person has certain rules and guidelines to follow.
I am co-founder of the second oldest Apostolic Christian pro-homosexual organization in the nation. Unfortunately, due to hate from the Christian community (at large) and extreme disinterest from the homosexual community, our organization has all but collapsed. This is a shame because what we had hoped would be a beacon of light and acceptance to both Christians struggling with this issue, as well as to homosexuals looking for “something more” has been stamped out.
If anyone is interested in more information regarding homosexuality and Christianity, I would be happy to provide it – email me at Frank@Frank-Clark.net.
Does one need to accept Jesus Christ as God and believe in the Nicene Creed to be a Christian? That would be my position.
Mark,
I’d have to disagree with the Nicene Creed in and of itself as having anything at all to do with being a Christian. It was written in the 4th century A.D. as a sort of barometer of Christian faith at that time. I guess you could argue, as your point, that someone would need to believe everything written in that creed to be a Christian by your estimation….but….the tenants of the creed are supposedly based on scripture. And, the scripture also warns against following man-made creeds.
Along those lines, it’s interesting to note that the early Baptists strongly opposed the adoption of any formal creeds and placed a high value on the role of individual conscience. Contrast this with the doctrinal purity now demanded by the Southern Baptist Convention and one begins to see how their churches have become such unhealthy places.
to reply about the article What is a Christian? Can you be gay and a Christian? Let’s first look at what does the Bible say? 2 Corinthians 5:17 says….
17Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
You can’t be a new creation or creature if your “GAY” can you? “GAY” meaning old and a new creation meaning new (Christian)? HOW CAN LIGHT (Christian)HAVE FELLOWSHIP WITH DARKNESS (gay)? 1 Corinthians 3:18 says:
18Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.
19For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
20And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.
21Therefore let no man glory in men.
Moderator Note (DR): This commenter was previously banned and and yet posted earlier in this thread without any regard to that status. Nevertheless, that post was allowed to remain as it had become integrated into the discussion. However this and any future comments which get past the ban will be removed without comment or explanation.
“2 Corinthians 5:17 says….
17Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
You can’t be a new creation or creature if your “GAY” can you? “GAY” meaning old and a new creation meaning new (Christian)? HOW CAN LIGHT (Christian)HAVE FELLOWSHIP WITH DARKNESS (gay)?”
Dear Jody Curry, presenting your own interpretation of the bible and putting ‘gay’ with ‘darkness’ together would amuse Our Saviour.
If your misrepresentation is to be put into its core meaning; then what you are suggesting is that once a heterosexual accepts Christ in his life, then he should have no more connections with his heterosexuality (old), then must convert himself to homosexuality (new).
And another thing dear. You can place all six ‘seemingly rejecting’ verses on the table to make it sound like homosexuality is oh so darn evil; but I put this dare to you now, name me one verse that Our Saviour Christ Himself, that even mentions homosexuality. Yeah, your bible would have Christ own words in red letters right? Oh please edify me. Name one.
And since we are at it, read this in context dear:
Galatians 1:6-12
6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel
7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!
9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!
10 Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ.
Jody, if you are really blessed with knowledge of His Word, can you tell me what is the GOSPEL of CHRIST JESUS? Or are you deviating from sharing the one true gospel with a sub gospel created by you to condemn certain parties? Do you know what ‘gospel’ means? Yes. Good News. So what kind of gospel are you preaching now?
And dear, what is the the two greatest commandments by Christ? Allow me to remind you:
Matthew 22:37-4
37 Jesus replied: ” ‘LOVE the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’
38 This is the first and greatest commandment.
39 And the second is like it: ‘LOVE your neighbor as yourself.’
40 ALL the Law and the Prophets HANG ON THESE TWO COMMANDMENTS.”
So what is LOVE according to God?
1 Corinthians 13
1 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.
2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.
3 If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.
4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.
5 It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.
6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.
7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.
9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part,
10 but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears.
11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.
12 Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
13And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.
One of them is TRUST, not to mention PROTECTS.
So do you trust your gay neighbour when he tells you, ‘I am born a homosexual and I can never like women?’
Love does not delight in evil but rejoices in the TRUTH. If a person who is homosexual goes to God, pure in heart with a clear conscience that he or she is born different and still praises and worships Him with his heart, soul, and mind, is he delighting in evil?
As he or she rejoices in the truth…
Who decides and determines who is holy or not? You?
Who are you to judge whether homosexuals qualify to be Christians?
Lastly, remember John 3:16?
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM SHALL NOT PERISH BUT HAVE ETERNAL LIFE.
NOW do you remember THE GOSPEL?
“Don’t make me laugh SharonB.
The I m a g e does not eem to fit with the imge that God built into the Souls of Man: LOVE CAN ONLY EXIST BETWEEN A MAN & A WOMAN AND THEIR CHILDREN.”
Yes, it is so true. Fortunately for us, and unfortunately for you; DIVORCE, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE (ETC) CAN ONLY EXIST BETWEEN A MAN & A WOMAN; AND ABORTION, CHILD ABUSE (ETC) CAN ONLY EXIST BETWEEN A MAN & A WOMAN AND THEIR CHILDREN.
“So No Gay Christians and no Paedohile Christians.”
Yeah, I am sure Our Heavenly Father will have a lot to say about, Christian Adulterers, Christian Child Abusers, Christian Abortionists (and their Christian doctors) etc.
Do not worry. SharonB would have no time to make you laugh. But I would have plenty of time to laugh at your brand of comedy!
Jan Jan Jan… reading your post again and again can really make laugh a person to tears! Good reading! I suggest you to check with the the youngest brother of your oldest uncle whether he likes guys or not in the first place!
And dear, while you are so concerned about gays embracing young boys, are you saying you are willing to let straight men molesting young girls, because LOVE can only exist there?
OMG. You do not even know the difference between HOMOSEXUALITY and CRIMINALITY! I would have a rough time taking care of children who are diagnosed with HIV because their mother had AIDS after she was raped! Maybe you would also like to ask HOW she was raped too?! Nah, you are too busy with paedophiles…
So, can Jan “pull his oldest brother to ejaculation” Verhees be banned again?
Boo and everyone, erm… do you notice how Jan Verhees sounds a bit like… Jason Vorhees….?
(music #X-Files theme#)
(note: a lot of this is written from the perspective of assuming that God exists. thus, some of it may be irrelevant to some readers.)
There is always going to be debate about this, and here’s why.
Christians base their faith around the bible, to varying degrees. The bible wasn’t written in english. It was written in languages ranging from hebrew to aramaic and greek, which are all challenging languages to properly translate into modern english.
You’re going to have people who say you can’t be actively gay and a Christian. You’re going to have people who say the opposite. People are going to quote scripture left and right, some of it may be twisted, some of it used out of context. The result? God’s truths as written in the Bible are very frequently messed up, for various reasons. This is what makes the Christian faith both interesting and confusing, whether it has to do with homosexuality or anything else.
What I’ve observed is that the Christians who are so angry about gays have failed to understand the methods of the Jesus they supposedly follow. While their bible clearly teaches that homosexuality is a sin, they’ve for some reason magnified that as being “one of the worst”, when there are other scriptures that clarify that all sin is equal in the eyes of God (anything from murder to stealing and gluttony). This both justifies the importance of the Christ figure’s purpose of being a redeemer for all sin. The Christians who hate so much on gays, yet fall to gluttony or gossip or judgement of others, are just as sinful in the eyes of God as any homosexual. Haven’t we all sinned in some way?
Another key point that these Christian “gay-haters” have missed is in the way Jesus dealt with sinners. Scripture is pretty blatantly clear. He had dinner with them, befriended them, and they took care of him. He also healed the broken and blessed the poor. If you look at the four Gospels, who is it that Jesus was actually angry with or mean to? It was the Pharisees, the religious leaders of that day. You never see him angry or mean to anyone else, because from His perspective, it was these religious leaders who had messed everything up. He may have encouraged sinners to “go and sin no more”, but he wasn’t harsh or mean about it.
My points are that most of the Christians have completely screwed up Christ’s real message for one reason or another, and that when it comes to the bible’s reference of faith, it ultimately comes down to what you as a person, in the quietest secretest place of your heart, have come to believe in. Not what you do on the outside or what culture you’ve chosen to hang with.