This post deals more heavily with issues of the Christian faith than most. There is some “insider” language as a result. Most readers should be used to the fact that dealing with Exodus intensely means that one will be dealing with this topic, but for those who are new and may not share this faith, please bear with us.
Wendy Gritter, leader of New Direction, a former Exodus member ministry, has posted in interview format a conversation she had recently with Alan Chambers. The discussion came about after Gritter approached Chambers concerning an article he authored in Charisma which she felt caused a conflict between them. This is explained in Gritters post, Dealing with Conflict, on the New Direction blog, Bridging the Gap. In his response, Chambers made some statements which we find troubling.
I do not believe that the sin of homosexuality is just sexual. I think there is something far more troubling to the Lord when someone chooses an identity—regardless of sexual behavior—that is less than God intends for His creation.
This statement is supported by an earlier Charisma article by Chambers, and others in his first book, God’s Grace and the Homosexual Next Door, three years ago. The wild card here is the phrase, “less than God intends for His creation.” What on earth does one do with such a statement? One could easily ask Mr. Chambers if he is certain he might not have come closer to God’s best by actually procreating, instead of adopting. After all, that is a major part of marriage according to his interpretation. Did he miss God’s best by not waiting for his wife to become pregnant? Should they both have had more faith that God would provide a child the way, well, He intended?
Now of course, this is an absurd line of thought and certainly we do not believe those adopted children are any less “their kids” than if they had been born to the Chambers. Such a position would clearly devalue Chambers’ family. It would be an insult to the genuine love we feel certain they share with their children as a family. And yet he insults gays, and devalues their families and relationships because they don’t follow a “natural” pattern, or one which he understands as “God’s best” for them.
The heart of the Gospel is that each individual, through the course of their journey, needs to discover what is God’s best for them. This is not something that should be imposed from another’s own rigid views. For those who have been driven to believe their choice is either change or damnation, it creates an impossible goal which is always just out of reach. There’s no grace in that at all — that’s a gospel of works.
I believe the most important tasks before us are equipping, educating and mobilizing the Body of Christ to embody the model found in Jesus. He was 100% grace and 100% truth. We’ve, historically, gotten the truth part right but failed at giving grace. There are portions of the Body now erring on the side of grace, which in my opinion is just as dangerous as erring on the side of truth, Very few are doing both as Jesus did. We must encourage both!
How on earth does one “err on the side of grace?” And since when are grace and truth two separate things? How can there be grace without truth? Statements like that lead one to question Chambers’ basic understanding of the Gospel. But more tangible and obvious is the ability this position gives him in the discussion. The “truth” he speaks of, often designated with the capitalized “Truth” to identify his interpretation of absolute scriptural truth, is not open for discussion; to do so would invite compromise which is unacceptable.
In essence, this allows Chambers to play God. He does not compare notes and discuss understanding in the way that scripture says, “iron sharpens iron” (Proverbs 27:17). Instead he issues oppressive demands which he attributes to God. He does not challenge others to see another point of view, he demands them to see things through his. And this attitude flows through the organization for which he is responsible, Exodus International.
As I have stated before, there are people “missing” from the Body and they can be found in the gay community and we would be far better off with them than without. God would rather have a handicapped child than no child at all.
The reader can be forgiven for stumbling a bit at this point. As odious as some may find the idea that they are handicapped in God’s eyes because of their homosexuality, there is a more basic issue here. With these two lines Chambers contradicts his earlier statement about how the “sin of homosexuality is not just sexual” but that it troubles God when we “chose and identity” that is “less than God intends for His creation.”
As vague as that sounds (Baptist identity? American identity? Ex-gay identity?), we can probably agree that Chambers means those who, in his words, “take on a gay identity.” But now he says that God would rather have them gay (handicapped) than not at all? Now who wants to have his cake and eat it, too? This is such a mess — why does he think these people might be missing in the first place? Could it be that he has no clue of the part which he and Exodus have played in that?
Chambers is trapped. If he were to give even a millimeter in the other direction, all kinds of things begin to fall apart. Exodus’ mission, their constant emphasis on change, their policy activities, donations, even Chambers’ own life, these things start to look very different if he is able to accept, even for a second, that one can lead a good life, pleasing to God, without also striving with every fiber of one’s being to be heterosexual and, preferably, married with children.
One last quote which may go to the heart of Chambers’ inability to grasp so much of this:
Two men or two women pledging their lives to one another in marriage is less than God’s best for them. I’ve been there and my desires were much deeper and values compromised. The best thing I ever did was flee such a situation because it was not healthy or Godly. [emphasis added]
Chambers has never written anything that we are aware of which would indicate he ever had a serious same-sex relationship. In fact, there is no indication that he was ever really “out” at all, or at least not far. He claims to have visited some gay bars at age eighteen (with gay Christians, according to his original account) and during that same year (or early the next year, depending on the version) he says that he “gave up the lifestyle.” He started with ex-gay ministries the next year and makes no mention of having any same-sex experiences since.
This means that he may have actually lived as a gay man (sort of) less than a year during his teens. On a personal understanding of what being gay is about, his are the views of an immature, mixed up, eighteen year old who experienced no more than some anonymous sex and visits to gay bars in 1990. It is no wonder that he, and Exodus, just don’t seem to get it. Chambers’ view of GLBTs is shallow because his own brief experience was. Now he imparts that to all the rest of us.
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
Hat Tip: David Blakeslee for inspiring the use of the quote.
That article is appauling. Especially the last comment AC made referring to many people who should be in church being the gay community… and how God would rather have handicapped children, than no children.
That is so “Jacked Up”!
I cannot believe someone who has been through these sturggles personally, can be so insensitive and disrespectful to the dignity of us Gay Christians. That is so sick.
Wendy asked good questions.. and really gave him the benefit of the doubt.
The article on Bridging the Gap is worth reading… as disappointing as AC’s comments were.
He makes my blood boil a bit! Whenever I think, my opinion of him cannot get any worse, I read another artical where he makes a disrespectful comment to the gay christian community.
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but it is COMPLETELY unbiblical to say that “choosing a gay identity” is as bad or worse than engaging in homosexual behavior. As far as I know, the Bible doesn’t say a word about sexual identity in the first place!
*nods at Alex* The Bible predates the concept of “sexual identity” by thousands of years!
The “handicapped” comment is insulting not just to LGBTs, but to handicapped people. Disabled LGBT people all over America can tell Chambers the difference between their capacity to love and a disability. The sentence implies that a disabled person is a consolation prize at best, too, and not whole. It says that LGBTs and disabled people both can never entirely be good enough. I hope those adopted children are able-bodied.
As for Alan’s account of his toe-dip into the “gay lifestyle,” well, I started a serious same-sex relationship at age 18. But we didn’t know what it was going to become at the time, and we took many twists and turns, together and apart, before we got married. An 18-year-old’s-eye view can be valuable in many ways, but when one is in one’s mid-thirties, it is a liability at best.
Alex, I agree. People can debate back and forth about the straightforwardness of the verses referring to homosexual behavior all the time, and there can be rational, reasonable points on both sides.
However, I don’t think anyone can justly find Biblical reasons not to call oneself “gay.” Christians should identify primarily in Christ, but like David said, that doesn’t mean that other traits (such as nationality or denomination) can’t be identities. I see no difference when it comes to orientation (whether one acts on it or not).
From my vantage point, Alan Chambers if far more morally “handicapped” than the average gay American who is just trying to live their life, day to day, the best they can.
Alan seems to believe that accepting one’s attractions as an identity stands in the way of God being able to provide according to his will. A true believer believes. And accepting second best or a man’s feeble work-around only hurts everyone just as Ishmael (Abraham’s effort to go around God’s Will) was a curse to his children.
I am familiar with the mindset that goes behind this thinking. I grew up in it.
Through my childhood my family believed and practiced the faith that God will provide for health and healing. Further, relying on the hand of man got in the way of relying on the hand of God and was evidence of a lack of faith.
I had my first aspirin in my 20’s.
This is all fine and good as long as God is willing to be on one’s beck and call and assuming that God’s Will really is that one never rely on one’s self.
But some day I will write in detail the challenges to faith one experiences when you watch your mother gasp for breath, raving, as she dies a prolonged death in front of you without any of the benefits of “the hand of man” such as medical treatment or even pain medication, hoping and believing until the end that God was going to miraculously raise her up and heal her.
After one has gone through that experience, you see that Alan’s definition of “faith” is not based in God, it’s based in dogma and an arrogant insistence that God honor his dogma and fulfill Alan’s demands. It is a selfish faith masquarading as an obedient faith.
Alan is not obedient to God so much as he is obedient to his religious ideology and the particulars of his dogma. If God miraculously “heals” Alan then this is an evidence of His will. If he does not, this is an evidence of his testing and his desire to see Alan grow. In all possible outcomes, God validates Alan.
This may well be the least humble approach to faith that there could be.
And when Alan insists that others MUST share his faith of demands and claims on the Creater of the Universe, it is yet another selfish insistence on validation.
Alan Chambers’s talk of “a handicapped child” is illogical even within his own frame of reference. Acknowledging that one has a handicap is not equivalent to choosing an identity; it is simply facing a fact about oneself. So even if one starts from the premise – an absurd one in my view – that being gay is a handicap, it doesn’t follow that describing oneself as gay is “choosing an identity”. That’s just arrant nonsense, like most other things that Alan Chambers says on this subject.
I can’t believe that anyone takes Alan Chambers seriously.
1. He lies repeatedly. His unproven figures about “success” rates vary constantly, and his claim that Exodus would be removing itself from the political sphere was a lie. He also says whatever is necessary to ingratiate himself with whatever group he happens to be speaking to.
2. He has no moral center. His recent “apology” for his role in Exodus’ participation in the recent Uganda conference was a farce, nothing more than a vain attempt to wash his hands of the inevitable persecution–and possible murders–of GLBT people in Uganda that may happen as a result. His moral failing in that situation cannot be overstated, and he should have stepped down from Exodus permanently. His attempt to sweep this under the rug and go back to business as usual shows, in my view, that the man has completely lost his moral bearings. I don’t care how well he speaks Christianese, this event has permanently ruined the reputation of Exodus.
3. His form of Christianity is radical and exclusionary. Oh, yes… he crafts a very effective “mild-mannered” middle-of-the-road approach to those Charisma readers who don’t bother to look beneath the veneer (which is most charismatic Christians, in my experience), but he warps the concepts of grace and the priesthood of the believer to serve an artificial heterosexual ideal that goes far beyond what Scripture has to say on the subject, especially the apostle Paul. I see Alan as the same kind of pernicious legalistic influence that Paul warned the Galatians to reject.
I believe that Alan is simply projecting his personal sexual conflicts on everyone else, and as society has become more understanding of sexual orientation and the needs of GLBT citizens (although we have a long way to go), Alan’s words have grown more and more strident and tinged with doom for anyone who doesn’t share his viewpoint. As GLBT people have become more visible, the opportunities to make healthier life choices have become more plentiful. Gay kids are now growing up in a world where marriage and family can be a reality for them, too. Gay/straight organizations support GLBT kids at a time in their life where they are at their most vulnerable to attacks from their peers. Gay Christian organizations of all denominational flavors help support GLBT people to live a life consistent with their personal faith without having to reject their basic identity. Numerous gay dating websites now focus on finding and developing long-term relationships. And many large cities have well-established gay communities with many service opportunities where one can make a difference in the world.
A gay person of faith is no longer forced to live a life of isolation, emptiness and furtive, guilt-ridden sexual encounters typical of someone trapped in the closet, or a life of denial where their entire (unhealthy) existence and faith journey is defined by what they’re trying not to be.
Prior to the ubiquitousness of the internet, these healthy options were not as numerous or as available. Blogs like Ex-Gay Watch and Box Turtle Bulletin did not exist to counter the false claims made by “ex-gay” proponents. Therefore, Christian people struggling with their identity in 1990 likely believed that the only two options were the closet, or denial… both of which are designed to placate others at the expense of your own psychological and spiritual well-being.
Alan chose the latter, and has been committed to the closet/denial dichotomy ever since. However, that dichotomy has been shattered in recent years, so the only way that he can attempt to convince others (and himself) that healthy options are not healthy options is to inject the fear of eternal damnation into the discussion. How else to explain his aggressive attempts to deny that a gay Christian can be at peace with themselves and God, happy, and in a healthy, rewarding relationship? It refutes all that he has dedicated his life to. It’s a “false happiness,” a “false faith,” “less than the ideal, etc.–spoken by someone with very little personal experience with the gay community beyond the superficial and unhealthy.
Now that’s projection.
Well said, Christopher™. I think that you’ve summed up Alan Chambers’s position very clearly.
Timothy,
I’m so sorry to hear of your experience as a child. As someone who also lost my mom at a very tender age, I cannot imagine having to watch your mother suffer without medical intervention. It is amazing that your faith survived. Such a journey can birth a deep sense of grace in us – albeit through the crucible of suffering.
Timothy,
I am also sorry for you but it does remind me of a story our priest told us one Sunday about at man in a flood who turned down a boat and a helicopter because he was waiting to be saved by God. He died and when he went to heaven he asked God why he didn’t help him. God’s response was that he sent a boat and a helicopter for him but he refused them.
In some ways this reminds me of Alan as well. There are so many examples in front of him of Gay Christians, that it seems the height of arrogance to assume there is no way God put them there. I am not currently practicing, but I consider myself Christian and try to live the example of Jesus in my life. I don’t force anyone else to believe what I do and try to treat others with respect, and on my Judgement Day, I will stand up and say I have tried to live the best life I could, with a partner who I love and loves me. How can there be something wrong with that?
This is a great article. Since I was never subjected to the religious condemnations of my sexuality and grew up in quite a “liberal” household (as in, my mom fearlessly and truthfully answered any and all questions related to sexual issues during puberty), I probably don’t have the hurt and anger toward someone like Chambers that many here might have.
When I look at his writings, or hear him talk, or see his picture, I see a struggling man coming apart at the inside. All of this dogma must be complicated to maintain in one’s own head, let alone in practice. He has to be “truthful” because G-d commands it. But he also has to not have homosexual attractions or even identify with those attractions – which I take to mean, admitting that they are a part of your being.
I have doubts as to how much longer he can last like this. Maybe he’ll just fade into retirement when the next Exodus President comes along.
“And when Alan insists that others MUST share his faith of demands and claims on the Creator of the Universe, it is yet another selfish insistence on validation.” (Timothy)
“When I look at his writings, or hear him talk, or see his picture, I see a struggling man coming apart at the inside.” (Emily)
With these analogies in mind, it’s not unlike watching Alan trying to herd cats. He may catch a few to cage along with himself, but never catch them all. He seems to be scratching about with reactions to this and that.
With the pressures of his own innate nature in constant topsy turvy mode, and the rebuffs to his public displays of “belief” aka ‘the world according to Alan’, it seems he may be doing nothing less than playing host to a good case of self inflicted flees.
Of course he would, and according to Christian teaching we ALL are handicapped in that we are all born with Original Sin. With the exception of Christ ( because he was God made man) and Mary (because she is the Mother of God), all human beings, according to Christian teaching, are born without sanctifying grace, rendering us spiritually “handicapped.” So if Alan Chambers is saying that gays are the handicapped children of God, then according to Christian teaching he is equating everyone save Christ and Mary as being gay.
Christianity has been dispensing grace for over 2,000 years to gays, straights, and everything in between. What the majority of Christianity has failed is dispensing mercy, love, kindness, brother – and sister – hood, inclusiveness, defending the outcasts, and a host of other things. The majority of Christianity has also failed in the “Truth” part as well. We’ve twisted and torn the “Truth” into a means of hate, exclusion, justification for war, slavery, discrimination, and a host of other evil things. Despite our shortcomings, the Church has nevertheless been a dispenser of grace – providing a means for people to reunite with God. Some branches of Christianity have done a better job than others, and some, have done a better job at tearing down the walls that divide the straight community from the LGBT community.
It is better therefore that two should be together than one for they have the advantage of their society. If one falls he shall be supported by the other. Woe to him that is alone, for when he falls, he has none to lift him up. And if two lie together, they shall warm one another. How shall one alone be warmed? – Ecclesiastes 4:9-11
Then why does Alan Chambers use the label “ex-gay?” or someone with “SSA?” Didn’t we have a thread all about “post-gay,” “ex-gay,” etc.
I always wonder when Bible Christians use the term “What God intended for His creation” means. From what they say, it sounds like we are supposed to be living like Adam and Eve in the Garden of Pleasure. It’s as if they want all of us to go into the jungle, get butt-naked, and eat fruit all day. Christianity is not about going back to the Golden Age, but rather following Christ’s example of how to live one’s daily life: caring for the poor, welcoming the stranger, accepting the outcasts. (cf. The Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Matthew 25:34-35).
They aren’t missing, they’ve been thrown out! And there are Christian communities that do accept the LGBT community on an equal level: The Episcopal Church, several forms of the Old Catholic Churches, the American Catholic Church, MCC, to name a few. St. Luke’s Episcopal Church of Long Beach, in my opinion, is a model Church for showing that gay and straight are so intertwined that sexual orientation is no longer an issue.
Chambers, I guess, will never learn that getting married to someone of the opposite sex is not a ticket to heaven. It’s not a means to get God’s stamp of approval. It’s not a means to earn the title “Christian.” For Christians, doing what Christ commanded us to do with a firm faith is.
someone said it better elsewhere, can’t take the credit, but I agree with the thought — I wish Evangelical Christians would treat gays with the same respect they give to everyone else they think is going straight to hell. Who are we kidding? They think the Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, Shintoists, Jews, Muslims, Mormons, Native Americans, Atheist and every variety of Christianity that isn’t there own is headed for the same lake of fire — yet they manage to not go out of their way to form Ex-Jew movements. Where’s the “Day of Truth” regarding Islam? Where’s “American’s For Truth About Hinduism”? Where’s PFOXB – Parents and Friends of Ex-Buddhists?
Come on now, for every passage that they presume to say condemns homosexuality there’s like 15 that unambigously condemn having any other Gods, any other faith, and any other interpretation but one. Christianity says, like every other religion, “No no, they’re wrong, we’re right. We know they say that they’re right, but they’re not. We are.” Entire wars have been fought over this point. Yet for some reason, in 2009, they’ve decided that not all sinners are created equal. Those that are just as hellbound as me get a pass for some unknown reason, yet I can’t get a valid piece of paper from my own government recognizing the reality of my relationship because that one action would someone be worse than anything. My sinful gay “”lifestyle”” is somehow more sinful than any of the other sinful non-evangelical lifestyles. Absurd.
Alan’s premiss reduces his wife to a prosthesis.
Alan Chambers will not burn in Hell.
Long before that time, he will have rotted away. From the inside out. From putrid lies.
There will be be nothing left to burn.
We are both eternally grateful we are not him.
You, all, should be grateful too. Take pity. And continue to resist.
We can only imagine that Wendy was left rather flabbergasted at the time. Sometimes righteous anger takes time.
And that time for righteous anger is long overdue with regards to Alan Chambers.
“Uganda”.
Christopher says:
As a man who lived through this in 1990, as some of you did also, I find this statement to be rather simplistic and inaccurate. “The closet, or denial” were not the only two options then, nor have they ever been. Another option, which has always been before believers is the choice of chastity and celibacy. Chastity and celibacy, decided upon by any Christian in any point in the history of Christendom can’t be dumbed down to being a decision to “placate others at the expense of [one’s] own psychological and spiritual well-being.” Quite the contrary: chastity and celibacy have always been taught as one of the elements that enriches one’s spiritual well-being. Further, to state that “denial” is psychologically damaging begs the question of what is meant by “denial.” If one choose, through his rational mind, after weighing the evidence in his own life, in the world around him, as well as weighing the historical teaching of the church which has stated that it is immoral to live an active life of homosexuality, denying one’s identity as “a gay man” does not equate to something that is psychologically damaging. For that man, the view that is psychologically damaging is the view that chooses to “embrace one’s identity as a gay man.”
I think in many cases, especially today, people tend to view their sexuality as the core of their identity and that all other elements in their lives orbit around this. To use the phrase “deny my identity,” when the “identity” being referred to is “my identity as a gay man” has always seemed very strange to me, and I have never understood why people choose that particular part of their lives as their defining essence. It seems for those who have chosen to view at the core of their identity their homosexuality, it becomes the center of their solar system. If we are believers, our identity comes from the fact that we are children of God, and all else in our lives orbits around this central fact of our identity, including our sexuality, our temperaments and all the rest that makes us who we are.
Also, as an avid reader of C.S. Lewis, it seems important to understand, when one uses his quotations to defend a particular position, that one should at least understand where the quote comes from.
The quote that is used at the end of this post is from God in the Dock, p. 292, in an essay Lewis wrote about capital punishment entitled “The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment.” In it, he speaks of the need for justice to be based on the historical precedent of punishment that is “just desert” for the crime. He argues that the historic basis of this came from a jurisprudence which “was consciously accepting guidance from the Law of Nature, and from Scripture.” p. 288
The quote in question, dissected from this essay with no awareness of its context, leads to a concluding sentence about consequences to crime that should stem from the sense that “‘we ought to have known better,'” and that when this happens, we are “treated as a human person made in God’s image,” with the implicit understanding that “we ought to know better” comes from Natural Law and Scripture.
That is what this essay is concerned with: that all parts of society reflect the truth that our identity is rooted in recognizing that all men and women are persons “made in God’s image.” Lewis would have always argued that this is the core of our identity. The “tyranny” of which he speaks is not one which imposes a moral law in alignment with Scripture or natural law, but an oppressive tyranny rooted in the eutopian desire for others ” to undergo all those assaults on my personality which modern psychotherapy knows hot to deliver; to be re-made after some pattern of ‘normality’ hatched in a Viennese laboratory,” (p. 290).
This is the tyranny of which Lewis writes. It does him injustice to use his writing to justify a position that he already spoke clearly on, namely the morality of homosexuality. He would be opposed to the notion of modern psychology regarding the “normalcy” of homosexuality. One can choose to disagree with Lewis, but at least give him enough intellectual honesty to use him to only defend a position he would defend. He clearly wrote and espoused the belief that active homosexuality, is immoral, as he wrote in a letter to Sheldon Van Auken on May 14, 1954:
Perhaps Alan Chambers and C. S. Lewis are far more similar in their view of homosexuality than is comfortable. “Handicapped” and “disability” are close cousins. I certainly have viewed my homosexual desires as out of the norm, as a disability and as a handicap. But it is through them that I have come to “glory in my weakness” as Paul wrote. God’s grace has been poured out through this part of my life, and now, I would choose it all over again, not because I desire to embrace my “sexuality,” but rather because I desire to embrace the call to chastity and the strengthening of my spiritual well-being that has come from realizing that the only way I can succeed in this is by relying solely on Christ. My homosexuality has been the very vehicle through which my need for Christ has been revealed most profoundly in my life. This is the message that Lewis would urge all of us to follow, and it certainly has been the message of the Church from the beginning, and it was certainly the case in 1990.
The C.S. Lewis quote stands on its own quite well, regardless of the original circumstances under which it was made. Lewis formed his opinions of homosexuality a century ago in a world far removed from this one.
No one can say with certainty how he would respond to the issue today, nor is it really important. Lewis’ writings don’t have the authority of scripture and so I’m not terribly concerned about whether my use of his quote is according to canon. If I were trying to say that he said something about homosexuality that he did not, I believe that would be intellectually dishonest.
This is the only picking of nits over which I intend to indulge you today.
I was just listening to a song on youtube and thought what a perfect song it would be for Exodus, at least for the wives who marry these ex-gays:
Freda Payne’s 70’s hit “Band of Gold.” The part “But that night on our honeymoon we stayed in separate rooms,” and the other part, “Hoping soon that you’ll walk through that door and love me like you tried before.” They should call Ms. Payne and ensure the rights. Here’s a link to it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_65LLafsa9g
I think Ms. Chambers has hummed this tune a few times.
Dan in Michigan,
It would appear from what you write that you acknowledge that you are attracted to other men. You also acknowledge that you are homosexual. As far as identity goes, you seem to acknowledge and accept your gay identity as much as most openly gay men. The only difference is that you choose not to engage in sexual activity. This is no differnt than a heterosexual woman who joins a convent and chooses not to engage in sexual activity.
It would appear that you are not in denial. You are not pretending to be a “complete heterosexual.”
To be in denial would mean pretending to oneself that you are not homosexual. It is a very different concept from denying oneself sexual pleasure or denying oneself the intimacy of a romantic relationship.
Just a few rambling thoughts on what has been said on here recently.
The primary meaning of handicap, as given in Chambers Dictionary, is as follows:
“a physical or mental disability that results in partial or total inability to perform social, occupational, or other normal everyday activities”
We need, I think, to distinguish a handicap, as defined above, from things about a person that he or she for some reason would like to be different. I might be of average or below average height and wish that I were tall. I might have blue eyes and wish that they were brown, or vice versa. I might have dark brown hair and wish that it were blond, or vice versa. I might be a tenor and wish that I were a bass, or vice versa. And so on and so on. In the same way someone may be homosexual and wish that he were heterosexual.
A person in this kind of position can be correctly described as being discontented with his lot. He is not suffering from a handicap, and the best advice that can be given to anyone in this situation is to accept himself as the person that he is – which doesn’t mean defining his identity by any of the above characteristics, just before any ex-gayist starts banging that tired, worn-out old drum – and to get on with the rest of his life.
I would like to quote from a children’s book that I read years ago. I’ve never forgotten this passage. It’s a long time since I read it, so I can’t claim to be quoting verbatim, but near enough. Ben, a boy of twelve, is sitting on Hampstead Heath with the dog that he’s always wanted and which he’s got at last. But the real, live, flesh and blood dog doesn’t measure up to his fantasy dog. Evening is drawing on and the Heath is getting darker and darker.
I’m familiar with the passage from C.S. Lewis that Dan in Michigan quotes, in which he says:
That analogy has always struck me as being particularly clumsy and inappropriate, and scarcely worthy of a normally lucid and acute thinker. All other things being equal, two gay men or two lesbians who enter into a consensual sexual relationship are thereby being unjust to no-one.
David says,
To say that Lewis formed his opinions on homosexuality suggests that he viewed the position about homosexuality as something open to interpretation. And indeed, we can know what he would have said on the issue, since there is a constancy in his thinking that was perpetually railing against modern thinking that worked to overturn traditional moral beliefs. His world was not so far removed from this one–he died on the exact day that JFK died, and we haven’t relegated JFK’s thinking to the ash heaps of history just yet!
For Lewis, morality was based on the longstanding tradition of Reason and Natural Law. He outlines his thinking on this subject in The Abolition of Man. The following words of Lewis from this book are apropos of those who espouse a new-fangled theology that urges us to “celebrate” our homosexuality:
Lewis and any other historic Christian writers are fine to quote and reference until he or they run up against the modern notion of permissiveness in sexuality. When that happens, they are conveniently dismissed by being accused of saying things “scarcely worthy of a normally lucid and acute thinker.”
What is never brought into question is the position the reader holds. Perhaps all of the lucidity, and all of the clarity that Lewis ever espoused is not what should be questioned–it is the reader who dismisses away those passages that might be disapproving of the reader’s lifestyle, usually with the sorts of patronizing and dismissive things that William wrote. It is clear that men and women who have decided to live an active homosexual life in the Church have decided that the lens of truth through which they will view everything and all things is the one that allows them to live their lives as they would. The arbiter for truth becomes this: if it condones my lifestyle, it’s true.
If there was a Scriptural prohibition historically in the Old Testament, it can be justified by calling those prohibitions part of an idolatrous ritualistic activity at a pagan temple. Or if it’s a prohibition written in the New Testament, we now have the “wisdom” of modernity and academic scholarship to understand that really what Paul was talking about was pederasty. No one in their right mind, so the new thinking goes, from the Apostles, to the ancient Israelites, or any of the Church Fathers could possibly say that living a modern monogamous, consensual relationship between two men or two women is immoral. If they were living with us today, they would understand the quaintness and error of their thinking.
Dallas Willard spoke these words at a conference on C. S. Lewis in 1998:
Modern man doesn’t necessarily like to hear what his forebears said, and has very little use for “traditional morality.” G. K. Chesterton wrote,
The traditional moral view that Lewis would have espoused, and all of Christendom before him, is the one that says that to have homosexual desires is to be subject to “disordered” desire. Is that any more offensive than Chamber’s use of the term “handicapped,” or Lewis’s use of the term “disability?” To take offense at Chamber’s use of the term handicapped, means you have to take offense at any and all men and women throughout the history of Christendom who ever espoused Natural Law, who would tell us that our desires for members of the opposite sex is disordered and against nature. In one fell swoop, you have to throw out the writings of Augustine, of Thomas Aquinas, of all of the other Doctors of the Church and great saints of the Church. All you’re left with then, is the “small and arrogant oligarchy of those who happen to be walking about.”
What modern man fails to understand is that a “handicap” is a blessing, not a curse! A “disability” is what we need to glory in. In so far as we are “handicapped,” and have a weakness, it is the very weakness that we have that is used by God to reveal his glory and grace in and through us! As Lewis wrote, “every disability conceals a vocation, if only we can find it, wh. will ‘turn the necessity to glorious gain.’” The message of Lewis is this: that our homosexual desires, which in his view aren’t normal, which are disordered and a disability, and indeed, a handicap, is the source of our very strength, because it is through our weakness that Christ is shown strong. This is something that pro-gay theologians agree with–until it runs into their homosexuality and their desire to live a life of active homosexuality. Everything in their life, except that, is open to the interpretation that we are in need of a savior, because we are fallen men and women. It as if the only area in their lives that is not even remotely a possible handicap is their sexual desires for another man or another woman. This begs credulity.
Allan Chambers’ use of the term “handicapped” in reference to homosexuals is a term that is in direct agreement with nearly 2,000 years of Christian teaching. This is what is in consonance with all of the great writers and saints of Christendom! It is our weaknesses that make us strong, for it is in that part of our lives that God enters in. It is the story of redemption in the Christian’s life–it’s the story of the Cross. Christ’s greatest power was in His death. We are called to die to ourselves–why do so many gay men and women run from this calling, to recognize that perhaps their happiness and fulfillment stems from actually accepting the fact that there is something disordered within them, that perhaps they are indeed “handicapped?” I think it is our pride that prevents us from accepting that, as well as a desire to live as we would like. I’ve often thought this about homosexuality and modern man, and once again echo something that Lewis wrote: it is not that our desires are too strong, they are too weak. Messing about with sexual and earthly relational fulfillment is a weak substitute for recognizing that our handicapped nature is a gift through which God will bring “glorious gain.”
We get it, Dan. You’re gay and you can’t act on it ’cause your religion says so. And you have scripture and C.S. Lewis and Natural Law on your side. (clap..clap..clap)
So logic would say that, if you REALLY have the truth on your side, you won’t feel the need to try to insistently tell us so in paragraph after paragraph of comments.
Since Dan in Michigan was writing in response to me, let me clarify a few points.
1. John did an extremely good job in explaining what denial is and isn’t, and it was that understanding that influenced my statement:
I was struggling with my identity in 1990, so I’m speaking from personal experience.
The reason why I said there were only those two options at that time is because there is a clear difference between chastity and celibacy.
At different times in one’s Christian walk, one is called to be chaste. Because different denominations view this differently, this could range from no masturbation (because it encourages lustful thoughts) to no meaningless sexual activity (one-night stands) to no sex prior to marriage, which would apply equally to a teenager with his first girlfriend or a widower who has gone out for a few months with a woman he met at church recently. Chastity is often classified as self-denial, but it’s more accurately viewed as a postponement of sexual activity until it falls within what one determines to be Scripturally acceptable boundaries. That is not denial, nor the denial I was referring to in my original statement.
Celibacy is entirely different from chastity. It also acknowledges the reality of one’s sexual nature (whether gay or straight), but is a call from God to remain single (and therefore, sexually inactive) for one’s entire life, in order to pursue a greater ministry or purpose that God has planned. It is a special grace and vocation to be celibate.
The denial I was referring to is the fact that not all Christians are called to live a celibate life (which Paul clearly acknowledges, even though he promotes singlehood as the best option for a Christian), so the assumption that simply because you are gay you are automatically called to celibacy is specious. Now, a gay man or woman may be also called to a life of celibacy, but that has nothing to do with their sexual orientation. Are all gay Christians called to chastity at various points in their life? Sure. But not celibacy. And deliberately chosen lifelong chastity (for whatever reason) does not equal celibacy, either.
The denial I refer to is when a gay man or woman embraces celibacy when they have not received that call from God. This claim is often made publicly and often, which is generally a red flag that the person is in denial. Their life has revolved around their faith community so much that if they came out as gay–even chaste–they would likely lose their friendships and be shunned from the community. And even in the best cases, they’d be looked down upon as “broken” or “sinful.” And forget about serving in ministry as an openly chaste gay person–that’s out. So, instead, they claim they are celibate for life in order to avoid this situation and placate others–not because they have that call.
Case in point: I have a friend who is gay, Christian and celibate. As I’ve gotten to know him over the past three years, I can tell he has joy and fulfillment within that calling. He doesn’t have to go around telling everyone how celibate he is–in fact, you wouldn’t know unless you asked him. He doesn’t whine about being lonely (although I’m sure he can be from time to time) or how “painful” and “challenging” a sexless life is, either. He is truly comfortable and happy with himself, and it wasn’t this massive, deeply awful struggle to get there. It just was.
On the other hand, I know individuals who talk repeatedly about how “Side B” they are, but I know for a fact that they constantly chafe against their own stated beliefs by openly lusting after shirtless guys and having random sexual encounters from time to time–but of course, they don’t go “all the way,” so therefore, in their mind, they’re still Side B. We jokingly refer to them as “Oral B’s”. It’s clear they don’t have a celibate calling… they are just attempting to be celibate out of a sense of shame that comes from a denial of who they are as sexual beings… and an attempt to appear more acceptably spiritual to others.
In 1990, being confidently gay and Christian wasn’t an option because prior to the internet, you didn’t know of anyone else in your church like that, so you remained in the closet. And if you were forced to acknowledge your sexual orientation at all, you publicly claimed you were celibate to keep your friends, keep your ministry position or appear deeply spiritual, all of which are forms of denial designed to placate others. That’s why I can make the claim that the only two legitimately available options for Christians struggling with their sexual orientation at that time were denial or the closet.
2. C.S. Lewis was a great writer and Christian thinker, but the tone of how you’ve presented his arguments makes it appear that a) all Christians agree with him or b) all Christians should agree with him. Neither is true. Perhaps you didn’t mean that and you are simply sharing from an author you highly respect, but no one brought up his name in this discussion previously, so that’s why it comes off that way.
As a side note, I’ve always found it fascinating that many evangelical Christians always have one person beyond the Bible that they follow religiously. It could be St. Augustine, C.S. Lewis or Joyce Meyer, but it’s always someone. I personally happen to enjoy the writings of Francis Schaeffer, and find them inspiring and illuminating, but I don’t always agree with him, and certainly don’t guide my life by them.
Emily K says:
I come to exgaywatch quite often, but do not comment as often as I’m here. I do not view this website as existing for the purpose of espousing my views, though naturally my beliefs will be at the forefront of any dialogue that takes place. My comments were motivated for two reasons:
1. Vilification of Alan Chambers for using the word “handicapped” in the context of homosexuals, and,
2. The use of a pithy quote of C. S. Lewis as a defense against people like Alan Chambers (which Christopher, is the reason I brought Lewis in in the first place, and used so many quotes of his. It is not because he represents the foundation of my Christian beliefs).
Using C. S. Lewis to attack Alan Chambers who is attempting to uphold a moral teaching that Lewis himself held sparked the entire comment. It’s disingenuous to use Lewis in such a manner, and that caused me to step up out of my lurker status–I couldn’t let something like that go by unchallenged.
Further, “handicapped” is no different than “disordered,” or “disability,” as I’ve stated, so it seems to me, that in order to be consistent, one who vilifies Chambers for holding that view should also vilify C.S. Lewis, Aquinas, Augustine, and all the rest of the saints that upheld the doctrine of ordered and disordered desires as derived from the Natural Law. There is not a single saint who has not believed the truth of ordered and disordered desires. So if you vilify Chambers, you should throw them all out.
I am merely pointing out the logical inconsistencies that result in light of an attack on Chambers for using the term “handicapped” in regards to homosexuality. He is not alone in having thought this, and indeed, he has the whole history of Christendom, up until the middle of this century, on his side. What is the categorical difference between “handicapped,” “disordered,” or “against nature?” That’s what Christianity has always taught, so Chambers is in good company. Today’s Christian gays, particular the “Side A’s” seem to have no real cognizance of the surprising brevity of this new theology that they cling to to justify their active homosexuality. In light of history, and of Christian thought, it’s a mere puff of wind. They don’t know the history from where it comes, nor do they understand that this new theology was manufactured by homosexuals in the church as a way to find any mechanism by which to justify what, prior to their arguments, had always been considered immoral. I doubt many people have taken the time to research the history of gay theology–they simply accept it, wherever they read it as something that “must be true” because someone somewhere said it, without realizing that this is the first time in the history of the world that this particular line of reasoning has been proposed.
If you attack Chambers for saying that homosexuals are “handicapped,” then you have to throw out every teaching the church has ever taught on sexual morality. It all goes out the window, and all you are left with is cherry picking what happens to sound OK today. It has all been rooted, from the very beginning, on the concept of ordered and disordered desires. All we are left with, then, with gay theology is a theology manufactured in man’s image, and what that is is idolatry.
Christopher says:
To address Christopher’s notion of celibacy and chastity. Scripture is quite clear: sex outside of marriage is forbidden, so until one is married, one is called to live chastely, i.e., in a celibate life. To suggest that there is a distinction between living chastely and living a celibate life is absurd. Chastity is the spiritual virtue that the celibate man or woman must uphold. And until one is married, all of us are called to be celibate: the state of being unmarried and living chaste lives. This isn’t a specious argument—it’s what Scripture teaches, and what the longstanding tradition of the Church has taught. Celibacy is given as a gift, to everyone from the moment of their birth, as a vehicle by which they can offer up a denial to their very strong, and very real, sexual desires, in obedience to God. The gift is not to become an asexual creature—the gift is to be able to unite one’s suffering in the struggle against his very desires with the suffering of Christ!
There is a strange notion in modern circles that says, “Since I have such strong sexual desires, then I have not been given the gift of celibacy. Clearly, because the desires are so overwhelming, I’m not called to celibacy.” The gift of celibacy would be meaningless, and the virtue of chastity, would be meaningless if it was not difficult! Chastity is a virtue because of the very difficulty of its fulfillment. You seem to suggest that the man who is called to the celibate life for some strange reason has never had the desire to be married or to have sex. The value in living the life is in the very denying of those desires, in obedience to God. If living a celibate life was not a challenge, it would have no value in God’s economy, nor would its sacrifice be held up as a virtue. Those who are living celibate lives are not automatons who were given some sort of gift of asexuality. They have chosen to offer up their very real, as real as anyone’s, sexual desires as a sacrifice of obedience to God.
It’s an insult to those who have chosen to live a celibate life to say that it is an easy thing to remain chaste. It’s a hard and difficult life, which is exactly what gives it value in God’s Kingdom.
Our desires for members of the opposite sex? That, I am sure, was nothing more than a careless slip. The ironic thing is that it’s not so far from being true as it stands. Let’s see what some of those Doctors and great saints of the Church have to tell us.
St Gregory of Nyssa said that Adam and Eve would have multiplied in an angelic fashion without marriage or sexual intercourse if the Fall had not taken place, and that it was only because God had foreseen the Fall that he gave man the sexuality of the beasts, “which in no wise accords with the nobility of our creation”.
St John Chrysostom also declared that no sexual intercourse could have taken place between Adam and Eve in Paradise, and that it was only the Fall that brought an end to their angelic and virginal existence.
St Jerome, commenting on I Corinthians 7:1, says:
Jerome said that the only good that he could discover in marriage was that it produces virgins, and he said:
St Augustine said that man’s resemblance to God could be discerned only where sexual distinctions did not obtrude, and that sexuality had no true bearing on humanity. Augustine was prepared to be rather bolder than Gregory of Nyssa and John Chrysostom and to conceive that sexual intercourse almost certainly did occur in Paradise, but unaccompanied by any sexual excitement. It would have been effected by pure, passionless will-power of the sort that we still use when we move our hands and feet and which some people can use to move their ears. He later came to think it possible that sexual desire of a kind did exist before the Fall, but that it arose only at the bidding of the will when it was rationally required for procreation. Even in marital intercourse, he thought, sexual pleasure could become inordinate and thus a mortal sin. He said of the ideal husband’s feeling towards his wife, “He loves her humanity and hates her femininity”, and he said of polygamy:
St Thomas Aquinas wrote:
He believed that pleasure in the marital act, while not absolutely and necessarily sinful, was a penal result of the Fall. He considered a marriage without carnal intercourse holier than one that included it, and said that virgins received 100% of their heavenly reward, widows 60% and the married only 30%.
If this was their understanding of heterosexual love, what could they understand of homosexual love? Just as we have now long taken a more enlightened view of heterosexuality than they did, so we can take a more enlightened view of homosexuality.
Dan, there’s no need to get personally offended simply because I was trying to clarify a few points in my original post. You act as if you’re being attacked for choosing not to engage in gay sex.
Personally, I don’t care whether you do or you don’t–that choice is between you and God. I was just giving some anecdotal examples of people who have a gift of celibacy and those that don’t. I don’t see any Scriptural basis that everyone has been given the gift of celibacy “from birth.” (If that were the case, the Catholic Church wouldn’t be having so much difficulty finding priests.) Even Paul doesn’t agree with this, when he encourages believers to get married if they can’t handle their sex drives as a single person.
While chastity and celibacy may have some functional similarities, they’re not the same thing. That’s not just my opinion–even the primary dictionary definitions for both words will show you that.
Look, Dan, if you’re happy and at peace with the decision you’ve made in your life, great! But this constant harping on how virtuous (by extension) you must be because you chose the difficult path of refraining from sex, well… those that are happy and at peace in a celibate calling don’t feel the need to go around and constantly remind people of how celibate they are, or why it’s great because this Christian thinker or that one agrees with them. To the rest of us, it sounds like you’re still desperately trying to convince yourself that you made the right decision.
That may not be the case at all, but it sure comes off that way.
No, it was no slip of the tongue. The Church, throughout its long history has been course-correcting from times of an overly ascetic view of sexuality, and on the other side an overly indulgent and liberal view of sexuality. It is the composite teaching of all of the great saints, in dialogue with each other, that has arrived at the historic view of sexuality in marriage, which in no way rejects the pleasure of the sexual act or views “touching women” as something vile.
No one “Doctor of the Church” is infallible, and at the point at which he is wrong, another will correct him.
For example, the case of the admittedly absurd assertion of Jerome that you quoted:
This comes from his first book against Jovinianus, who was a man espousing a heresy involving sexual libertinism. Jerome composed strong words against him, and in so doing raised the eyebrows of his contemporaries who told him he had gone too far. St. Pammachius was a friend who raised the same concerns that any modern Christian would reading the excerpt you presented, and
(The above quote comes from an article on St. Pammachius at newadvent.org)
Indeed, the history that has been written of Jerome and his books state that he was in error in the first book, which you quoted.
(From Catholic.org)
What has happened constantly throughout history is a validation of the good of marriage, in its entirety, including the sexual pleasure that has been given by God. A prohibition against an overly indulgent use of sexuality in marriage has been upheld, just as Paul taught, but the examples you espouse of an overly ascetic view have been corrected by others. What is important in Jerome’s case is that he thanked Pammachius for correcting him and acknowledged his error.
Marriage has always been under attack, from every angle, whether from an overly ascetic take or a more liberal slant, because of it’s institution by God. What has never been in question, ever, in the history of the Church, and on which all saints have agreed, is the sanctity of marriage between a man and woman. This has never been in dispute, and despite what you say is a current “enlightened” view of heterosexual marriage, in the case of Jerome’s overly ascetic view, it was corrected back then, by another saint of the Church. It is not modern man who corrected Jerome–it was a contemporary. To suggest then that modernity can now impart its enlightened view on homosexuality, just as it has done for heterosexuality doesn’t hold any credibility since the overly view of ascetic strictures placed upon marriage by some in the Church were corrected long ago.
As to the claims that Adam and Eve didn’t have sex in Paradise, there is no dissonance with Scripture at all–we are told in Scripture that there won’t be marriages in Heaven, which is referred to as a return to our Paradisal state, so why should this surprise us or seem strange?
As much as I would enjoy dialoguing more on this subject, since I am convinced that “Iron sharpens Iron,” I must be off to work.
Dan says:
This is crossing the line. David Roberts has the final say of course, but this is not the place to attack Side A Christians. I’m an avid defender of Side B’ers when they explain their beliefs here, namely when Jay wrote a piece about celibacy and sexual honesty and was attacked for “denying is nature.” But what you are doing is equally inappropriate.
Why you feel so threatened by this forum that you feel the need to hammer home your religious beliefs for the rest of us is a mystery to me, as we’ve always been welcoming of all walks, but you are not going to win any friends or convince anyone that you are “right” and [everyone else] is “wrong.”
Dan in Michigan is concerned about the “vilification” of Alan Chambers over using the word “handicapped” and “upholding a moral teaching.”
Dan, Alan Chambers is not capable of “upholding a moral teaching.” He is a constant liar and promotes hatred and discrimination against gay people in the US and overseas. His actions and inactions with regard to the Exodus sponsored Ugandan conference and the subsequent anti-gay campaign that has grown out of the conference are about as despicable as it gets. Let’s not forget about Uganda’s violent past or that many Tutsi’s went into exile in Uganda. Uganda and its neighbors have suffered far more violence recently than any people should ever experience. Why stoke the flames?
By comparison, his reference to gay people as handicapped is so minor as to be inconsequential. All it does is call attention to the severely handicapped life that he “struggles” with every day, while trying to make the rest of us as miserable as he is.
Dan, if your mission in life is to stand up and defend Alan Chambers against unfair criticism, I think you are wasting your time. I’m not sure it is possible to unfairly criticize Alan Chambers. He deserves to be called out on every single horrible thing that he does. If you want an example of someone “living in sin,” I would suggest you focus on the dishonest, underhanded, contemptible life that Alan Chambers is living. I think it might be more educational than waxing on and on about some old quote from CS Lewis.
Emily is quite correct. Dan has been around here long enough to know that making such smears against the beliefs of people of good conscience is unacceptable. Beyond that, I have been watching this thread swiftly change course to orbit around Dan, with no more discernible purpose than to reinforce his own world view. Intentionally or not, this tends to sabotage discussion and reduce the quality of debate for all concerned.
Dan, I have reviewed your comments since you started making them at XGW. They are infrequent but in each burst you repeat this pattern. They are tedious and smug, and they center the discussion around you in short order. The result is not a meeting of the minds or even “iron sharpening iron” but an argument of attrition.
A desire to provide an atmosphere of open discussion leads me to be patient, even though that does not come naturally for me. But my concern is that we also provide a relatively safe space with honest debate. I think it works well most of the time, but it isn’t working right now.
I’m going to ask that you apologize for the statement above — you can not possibly know the intent of those who interpret scripture differently than you on this issue. Your statement was callous and demeaning to some very sincere, honest believers. In addition, I’m going to ask that for the foreseeable future, you limit your comments to one or two paragraphs maximum, with no more than a few lines each. Use the quote above as the maximum. And in these comments, make one concise point germane to the original post.
It is my interest to see if there is any way you can contribute in a positive way to the discussion. The alternative at this point is to ask you to stop commenting, which of course is always your choice. For the rest, please either continue commenting sans Dan’s remarks, or go on to the next thread.
Thank you for your cooperation, and I apologize that such an interruption was necessary. XGW is not an idle project; their are lives behind what we discuss.
Dan in Michigan said:
There are many doctrines and beliefs that have been seeds in the deposit of faith that have taken many years to germinate. The understanding of homosexuality is one of them. During the Middle Ages there are many poems glorifying homosexuality amongst monks and nuns (since they were usually the only ones who could write).
Another such belief is having a lifetime partner. Marriage was usually just a means for procreation. It was never considered a defined sacrament for Christianity for over 1200 years of Christian history. It took the Church a long time to acknowledge it, and it merely required the couple perform the sacrament in front of a priest. One major reason for marriage to be performed in front of a priest was to ensure priests were not marrying and having offspring, thus robbing the church of property.
The Church Fathers took a dim view of sexuality all together mainly because fathering children and having a spouse took away from a man’s duties as a Christian. That’s why men and women were encouraged to become monks and nuns after they fulfilled their marriage duties. In other words, once they had a sufficient amount of children and the children were able to be on their own (for the girls it meant they got married off, became nuns, or worked for the nobility), the couple were free to work in the Church.
It was during the Protestant Reformation times that relationships between men and women began to change. Protestantism actually aided in expanding Christianity’s understanding of sexuality. Wives were looked more as companions rather than just baby machines. Other factors during this time helped in making this a reality.
Protestantism showed that a man and woman can be productive in the Church as a couple. They did not have to wait until their children left the house in order to be productive members of the Christian community.
This led to the role of women in the Church be more inclusive, as Protestantism in the 21st century has demonstrated with female bishops, priests and preachers taking leadership roles that would have been unheard of in St. Augustine’s time.
For some of us Christians, this is a sign of the Spirit moving the Church forward to accomplish its mission of being truly “Catholic” meaning “embracing all.”
As an Orthodox Catholic I have no problem understanding how and why it takes the Church a long time to acknowledge something like same-sex marriage. I don’t negate that there were times in the Church’s history that the Church took different views on different subjects, homosexuality included.
Take the case of the Immaculate Conception of Mary. There were Church Fathers who denied it and used Scripture in doing so. The Eastern Orthodox consider it an unnecessary belief because of their understanding of Original Sin. It took the Church a long time to come to grips with the concept, and was not defined until the 19th century by the Roman Church. Other parts of Christianity either deny it or do not consider it relevant to the Christian faith as a whole. As someone who believes in the Immaculate Conception, it doesn’t phase me that it took the Church a long time to define it, nor that there was and is opposition to it.
It has taken the Church a long time to understand and accept homosexuality. And there are those in the Church who accept it and those who don’t. There are branches of Christianity that embrace the LGBT community and those that don’t. Like with any doctrine or belief, there will be divisions that only time and God’s grace can heal.
Moderated: Dan has chosen to leave rather than apologize and follow my request about his comments. Since his last comment simply restates his position yet again but with more vigor, it has been moderated. Please do not address any more comments to Dan as he can not respond. Thank you.
DR
Alan Chambers:
If he is sincere about welcoming gays in his church then his church will need to adjust to the needs of the gay community. And the LGBT people he invites are going to have to feel welcomed which I honestly don’t think Chambers and his brew can accomplish in all reality. It is one brand of Christianity (amongst many others) that has caused so much damage to the individual lives of so many LGBT people who sincerely seek to find God and a place to worship. If his words are sincere then Exodus will need to make a 180 degree turn around, otherwise, as Shakespeare said, his words are “full of sound and fury signifying nothing.”
I love that Lewis quote. More American Christians need to read the original article to understand the dangers of a nation under God.
Hey Alan, that’s a great historical summary, very enlightening. Where can I find some more reading on the topic and thus help myself in my continual progress toward undoing the conservative religious brainwashing I grew up with?
I believe that, in the original article on this page, David Roberts dismissed Alan Chambers’ own handicap a bit too quickly.
Chambers’ own handicap — infertility — forced him and his wife to adopt. Now he projects his own sexual handicap, his own sense of inadequacy, onto gay people.
What nerve.
Tom:
There’s no one source for the information I gave about the Church’s growing understanding of homosexuality. I would recomend starting with Bowell’s books (you can find his books at amazon.com for instance). There are also books on marriage and how it progressed. As I am moving I have all my books boxed up so I can’t dig them out and get the titles, but you can google history of marriage and find some interesting things.
Pax 🙂
Thanks Alan!