Common Myths about Gay Christians

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Jay

That what my point has been. If a person has been saved, they should not even wish to be acknowledged for their tendencies. I do not see a 'temperamental Christian support group' (wait, that is is what AFF is).

So you don't like it that some saved cutters called themselves "Cutter Christians"? Some kids I know at the rally were happy to know who to turn to if they or a loved one struggled with cutting.

Some terms are in house terms we can use to show who some folk can turn to. A struggling gay believer might not turn to us for help because we can't understand what they are going through. He or she might turn to those known as "gay Christians" because they have been there and can understand.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

This is where the pleas for accepting Gay Christians (that are homosexuals, but not presently practicing, yet want to be allowed and acknowledged for their gayness) exposes the real reason for the argument.

The last few pages have now shifted to accepting those "Christians" who are practicing the abomination (in a monogamous, committed relationship of course) ... you know - like Christians with different views of the rapture...

No thank you.

Who said we should "accept" practicing homosexuals? We're only talking about a different theological perspective. Don't freak out or overreact bro. Some of us aint too skeered to discuss other views and opinions. Most here reject the Trinity for crying out loud. We of all people realize the majority opinion isn't always correct. It should be tested. Minority views should be evaluated, even if only for informational purposes. I mean...we've even discussed polygamy (pro and con) openly. So just chill...and stop spitting. lol

[The Matt]

Originally Posted by Aquila

You're not getting it. It's an informal term. I don't think we should formally designate them as "gay Christians". Some of them however have been told that they can't be gay and a Christian, so they are simply making a statement that they are. It's like if for generations we said one can't be black and Christian. Some black Christians might want to call themselves "African-American Christians" to show that they indeed can be. It's a social thing.

In my mind it's fitting to some degree because they indeed are gay but they are also Christians. When the sigma and judgmentalism ends, I'm sure those celibate "gay Christians" will simply prefer to be called "Christian". Many prefer it already.

Let's see if we can agree... If a person is a gay but celibate believer...should they simply be called "Christians"?

Yes, I think so.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Aquila

So you don't like it that some saved cutters called themselves "Cutter Christians"? Some kids I know at the rally were happy to know who to turn to if they or a loved one struggled with cutting.

Some terms are in house terms we can use to show who some folk can turn to. A struggling gay believer might not turn to us for help because we can't understand what they are going through. He or she might turn to those known as "gay Christians" because they have been there and can understand.

There is a very good reason for rejecting the term. There is at least one 'gay church' in my area. Their are others who do not care what your lifestyle is as long as you attend that church. This leads people who are actively participating in the homosexual lifestyle to call themselves 'Christian'. This is an ever growing movement made especially popular by our wonderful secular media (heavy sarcasm). I do not know how many articles I have seen claiming that a person can be 'gay' and Christian.

Call me what you want, but when the term 'gay' is used to describe an active homosexual lifestyle, the last thing on a Christian's mind should be anything that will identify them with that life. Words and identity matter, and it is highly indicative of our spiritual status when we cease to care about who we are identified with.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Jay

There is a very good reason for rejecting the term. There is at least one 'gay church' in my area. Their are others who do not care what your lifestyle is as long as you attend that church. This leads people who are actively participating in the homosexual lifestyle to call themselves 'Christian'. This is an ever growing movement made especially popular by our wonderful secular media (heavy sarcasm). I do not know how many articles I have seen claiming that a person can be 'gay' and Christian.

Call me what you want, but when the term 'gay' is used to describe an active homosexual lifestyle, the last thing on a Christian's mind should be anything that will identify them with that life. Words and identity matter, and it is highly indicative of our spiritual status when we cease to care about who we are identified with.

An active homosexual can't truly call themselves Christian.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Jay

There is a very good reason for rejecting the term. There is at least one 'gay church' in my area. Their are others who do not care what your lifestyle is as long as you attend that church. This leads people who are actively participating in the homosexual lifestyle to call themselves 'Christian'. This is an ever growing movement made especially popular by our wonderful secular media (heavy sarcasm). I do not know how many articles I have seen claiming that a person can be 'gay' and Christian.

Call me what you want, but when the term 'gay' is used to describe an active homosexual lifestyle, the last thing on a Christian's mind should be anything that will identify them with that life. Words and identity matter, and it is highly indicative of our spiritual status when we cease to care about who we are identified with.

Also, I understand your point. Did you understand mine?

[Jay]

I understand the basic concept that you are describing, however I must say that there must be a better way to achieve the same end. I believe if every once in a while a saint who had been there, done that, and been delivered would testify, it would help the saint that was engaged in a struggle with it.

I believe in helping people leave sin (that is part of what we are called to do), but I do not believe that we must acquire the imagery and terminology of the world in order to do the job. Especially when those very terms are already being used to infiltrate and corrupt the church and destroy Biblical teaching.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Jay

I understand the basic concept that you are describing, however I must say that there must be a better way to achieve the same end. I believe if every once in a while a saint who had been there, done that, and been delivered would testify, it would help the saint that was engaged in a struggle with it.

I believe in helping people leave sin (that is part of what we are called to do), but I do not believe that we must acquire the imagery and terminology of the world in order to do the job. Especially when those very terms are already being used to infiltrate and corrupt the church and destroy Biblical teaching.

I actually agree with you in many ways Jay, and I understand your point. However, in reality, many celibate and faithful Christians who have same gender attraction call themselves "gay Christians". I doubt they will cease to do so simply because it agitates the sensibilities of more conservative brothers and sisters. So we can either accept that fact or become divisive over the terminology they use.

So theoretically, I agree with your logic. However, on the practical application of your view I have to say it's untenable. Your view would require that we police terminologies people use and demand they conform to our opinions. Until that is a success, the reality is that we are faced with those among us who, at least on occasion, identify themselves as "gay Christians". So if they are faithful to Christ, I accept them.

[Jay]

I would say that it has less to do with whether or not it 'agitates the sensibilities' as that we are called to separate ourselves from the world and all ungodly associations. I have to question the motive and results of using terms that the world is using, especially when it is launching what amounts to an internal assault on the church.

I would say that in this, the new Christian who is struggling with homosexuality must be taught that words do have meanings, and that is why it is time for him to put aside the labels that he once wore.

It is a fine thing to wish that the words that we use did not serve as our identity, however that is not the case. Nor should it be. I am all for giving them the time to grow and adjust to their new reality, but there does come a time when certain things must be left behind.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Jay

I would say that it has less to do with whether or not it 'agitates the sensibilities' as that we are called to separate ourselves from the world and all ungodly associations. I have to question the motive and results of using terms that the world is using, especially when it is launching what amounts to an internal assault on the church.

I would say that in this, the new Christian who is struggling with homosexuality must be taught that words do have meanings, and that is why it is time for him to put aside the labels that he once wore.

It is a fine thing to wish that the words that we use did not serve as our identity, however that is not the case. Nor should it be. I am all for giving them the time to grow and adjust to their new reality, but there does come a time when certain things must be left behind.

I agree, but you're still in hypotheticals. Can you answer the question.