Common Myths about Gay Christians

[bbyrd009]

I agree with you Aquila, but note that a Christian tempted by these, just as a homosexual might be tempted, do not affix "Glutton" to the front of Christian, and attempt to legitimize it, as it seems to me homosexuals do? Or, to put it a less kind way, there is no such thing as a ______ Christian. You are a Christian, and ______ is your problem, not a badge of pride, or a meaningful label.

"Also keep in mind that many call themselves "gay," but it does not necessarily imply gay behavior."

Ortho, I am unclear the meaning here, do you mean the old def of "gay" for these? ty

[Orthodoxy]

Originally Posted by bbyrd009

Ortho, I am unclear the meaning here, do you mean the old def of "gay" for these? ty

I understand and respect your hesitance to accept the label "gay Christian." However, I think I disagree.

Wesley Hill, a same-sex attracted Christian wrote a book review recently about sexual identity labels. Here is part of what he said:

When it comes to labeling those groups of people whose sexual desires differ from others, Christians may disagree about how that may best be accomplished. Some may prefer to steer clear of what Paris calls the "sexual identity framework," avoiding nomenclature such as "gay" or "straight" altogether. Others may continue to believe that such labels capture something true and important. For myself, using the term "gay" has enabled me to attain a greater depth of honesty-with myself and with others. It has given me a way to achieve greater accuracy in naming the persistent, exclusive nature of my desires where a term like "same-sex attraction" seems too weak. Furthermore, claiming the "gay" label has allowed me to begin to discern a vocation. To borrow Paul's language in 2 Corinthians 12:7, when I acknowledged that my "thorn in the flesh" didn't seem like something that would be easily removed, that recognition enabled me to encounter God's power in the midst of pain. My unique thorn, I realized, may be the precise point at which I am called to receive and reflect his grace and embody the "perfection" of his strength.

...................

As Mark Yarhouse, professor of psychology at Regent University, recently wrote for the Christ on Campus Initiative, there are many young Christians who are choosing to remain celibate but who nonetheless "share a common sense of experience with members of the gay community, and the use of the word 'gay' (as a self-defining attribution) is an honest account of their sexual attractions and reflects the resonance they feel with the gay community at that level." Surely such use of the word gay is miles away from defining a person's core identity for themselves or anyone else, isn't it?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by bbyrd009

I agree with you Aquila, but note that a Christian tempted by these, just as a homosexual might be tempted, do not affix "Glutton" to the front of Christian, and attempt to legitimize it, as it seems to me homosexuals do? Or, to put it a less kind way, there is no such thing as a ______ Christian. You are a Christian, and ______ is your problem, not a badge of pride, or a meaningful label.

"Also keep in mind that many call themselves "gay," but it does not necessarily imply gay behavior."

Ortho, I am unclear the meaning here, do you mean the old def of "gay" for these? ty

This is only the result of marginalizing gays in the church to an extreme. Those who have obeyed the Gospel want to be recognized as being Christians... even if they still have their struggles. I believe all disciples of Jesus should simply be called "Christians". But that doesn't happen in this world. They want people to know that those who are in this circumstance (be it because of genetics or experience) can be saved.

We still freak out at the little word "gay". lol

[bbyrd009]

Originally Posted by Aquila

This is only the result of marginalizing gays in the church to an extreme. Those who have obeyed the Gospel want to be recognized as being Christians... even if they still have their struggles. I believe all disciples of Jesus should simply be called "Christians". But that doesn't happen in this world. They want people to know that those who are in this circumstance (be it because of genetics or experience) can be saved...

Ya, I keep hearing this defense, and I keep not buying it? The phrase "Gay Christian" legitimizes gays, or (further, if that is possible) demeans Christians. Ha, and I take five, come back, and see the hypocrisy, sort of, maybe, in a sense. My best friend is gay, and I'm pretty sure he would claim to be a Christian. I see him as a Christian, and his orientation as none of my business, except when it is tacked on, in all innocence, to "Christian." I accept it like I accept I am a "Cigarette-smoking Christian," which I must immediately deny, as my image of myself does not support this. This is not the way it will always be, and dang sooner rather than later. I think attaching _______ to Christian denies this in an essential way that is either not intended in uttering "I am a _____ Christian," or is intended, and that may be the question.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by bbyrd009

Ya, I keep hearing this defense, and I keep not buying it? The phrase "Gay Christian" legitimizes gays, or (further, if that is possible) demeans Christians. Ha, and I take five, come back, and see the hypocrisy, sort of, maybe, in a sense. My best friend is gay, and I'm pretty sure he would claim to be a Christian. I see him as a Christian, and his orientation as none of my business, except when it is tacked on, in all innocence, to "Christian." I accept it like I accept I am a "Cigarette-smoking Christian," which I must immediately deny, as my image of myself does not support this. This is not the way it will always be, and dang sooner rather than later. I think attaching _______ to Christian denies this in an essential way that is either not intended in uttering "I am a _____ Christian," or is intended, and that may be the question.

Most of the "gay Christians" that I know only call themselves "Christians", unless the context of a discussion is about subjects that would make being of homosexual orientation relevant. I am relatively certain there are such Christians reading our conversation.

Context.

In the church I attend everyone simply calls themselves a Christian. However, in a youth group service three or four kids stood up and addressed the crowd as "Cutter Christians". Their message? "Jesus was cut for the cutters." These are kids that cut themselves to release emotional pain through bleeding. And they have found peace in Christ. Sometimes they still feel like cutting... but now they are not alone and they turn to Jesus. The context of their message was proper for them to call themselves, "Cutter Christians". In the case of an internet article about the subject at hand, I don't think using the term "gay Christian" is altogether inappropriate.

Of course... if one word you disagree with can send you into a tail spin with regards to seriously acknowledging brothers and sisters in Christ who happen to struggle with homosexuality... I think there's a more serious issue than the word "gay".

[Orthodoxy]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Most of the "gay Christians" that I know only call themselves "Christians", unless the context of a discussion is about subjects that would make being of homosexual orientation relevant. I am relatively certain there are such Christians reading our conversation.

Context.

In the church I attend everyone simply calls themselves a Christian. However, in a youth group service three or four kids stood up and addressed the crowd as "Cutter Christians". Their message? "Jesus was cut for the cutters." These are kids that cut themselves to release emotional pain through bleeding. And they have found peace in Christ. Sometimes they still feel like cutting... but now they are not alone and they turn to Jesus. The context of their message was proper for them to call themselves, "Cutter Christians". In the case of an internet article about the subject at hand, I don't think using the term "gay Christian" is altogether inappropriate.

Of course... if one word you disagree with can send you into a tail spin with regards to seriously acknowledging brothers and sisters in Christ who happen to struggle with homosexuality... I think there's a more serious issue than the word "gay".

Great post.

[bbyrd009]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Most of the "gay Christians" that I know only call themselves "Christians", unless the context of a discussion is about subjects that would make being of homosexual orientation relevant. I am relatively certain there are such Christians reading our conversation.

Context.

In the church I attend everyone simply calls themselves a Christian. However, in a youth group service three or four kids stood up and addressed the crowd as "Cutter Christians". Their message? "Jesus was cut for the cutters." These are kids that cut themselves to release emotional pain through bleeding. And they have found peace in Christ. Sometimes they still feel like cutting... but now they are not alone and they turn to Jesus. The context of their message was proper for them to call themselves, "Cutter Christians". In the case of an internet article about the subject at hand, I don't think using the term "gay Christian" is altogether inappropriate.

Of course... if one word you disagree with can send you into a tail spin with regards to seriously acknowledging brothers and sisters in Christ who happen to struggle with homosexuality... I think there's a more serious issue than the word "gay".

Well, I would put them wholly in the Christian category, while still agreeing with Jay. I have issues, too. I can speak as a smoker, or a Christian, and my speeches would agree, hmm, so as long as theirs do, I pray for them, my brothers and sisters. But if you are living a gay "lifestyle," ...that will speak more than I could.

I post to note the overtones of self-cutting revealed in the reflection of "the people" (which i may have derived from "sea" or "waters") in an online lexicon study of the word Armageddon, here, I can get one started, anyway...
http://biblelexicon.org/revelation/16-16.htm
I just dove off into "Har" and "Megiddon" there on the right.

I feel led to say that God chooses to use imperfect people to accomplish His will, and people are gay for complex reasons, but many of which are societal pressures, we make gay people, and depressives, and all the others, who may overcome also, and be a light now.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Aquila

This is only the result of marginalizing gays in the church to an extreme. Those who have obeyed the Gospel want to be recognized as being Christians... even if they still have their struggles. I believe all disciples of Jesus should simply be called "Christians". But that doesn't happen in this world. They want people to know that those who are in this circumstance (be it because of genetics or experience) can be saved.

We still freak out at the little word "gay". lol

I prefer Gah.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by bbyrd009

I agree with you Aquila, but note that a Christian tempted by these, just as a homosexual might be tempted, do not affix "Glutton" to the front of Christian, and attempt to legitimize it, as it seems to me homosexuals do? Or, to put it a less kind way, there is no such thing as a ______ Christian. You are a Christian, and ______ is your problem, not a badge of pride, or a meaningful label.

Amen.