Common Myths about Gay Christians

[MawMaw]

Originally Posted by Dordrecht

[B]There is something wrong with the name of this thread.
There is no such thing as a "Gay Christian".[/B]

only in a very deceived mind.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Dordrecht

There is something wrong with the name of this thread.
There is no such thing as a "Gay Christian".

You doubt that there are Christians with a temptation towards, predisposition to, or proclivity for homosexual sin in their flesh?

If that's true...

There's no such thing as a Christian with a temptation towards, predisposition to, or proclivity for pornography in their flesh.

There's no such thing as a Christian with a temptation towards, predisposition to, or proclivity for pigging out on the buffet bar after church (gluttony) in their flesh.

There's no such thing as a Christian with a temptation towards, predisposition to, or proclivity for anger, strife, or debate in their flesh.

I'm seeing a fundamental misunderstanding of the sin nature, regeneration, and sanctification here. According to this if a Christian continues to be tempted by sin, occasionally struggles with or falls into sin... they are not a Christian. This is a grave perfectionist and legalistic error. Let's not forget that sanctification is a process. Different Christians are in different places in their walk in relation to personal sanctification. The goal is to press everyone to continue to move forward in their spiritual journey until they are conformed into the image of Jesus Himself.

[Orthodoxy]

Originally Posted by Dordrecht

There is something wrong with the name of this thread.
There is no such thing as a "Gay Christian".

Anybody who thinks this is such a "cut and dry" issue should read this interview with Justin Lee, founder of the Gay Christian Network.

I challenge you to read it. You do not have to agree with everything he says, but you should read it.

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

[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

[AncientPaths]

Aquila hits the mark yet again.

[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.

[Jay]

I have to disagree with many of the basic concepts here. I agree that it might not be possible for someone to ever end entirely an attraction to a member of the same gender. However, I do believe that such thoughts must be immediately replaced by something that falls in the category of whatsoever things are good, holy, true, virtuous, of good report, etc.

Second, I have seen to many 'gay-oriented Christians' start off by saying that we are too harsh when talking about the issue. It always ends with them trying to persuade us that a pro-gay lifestyle is acceptable in the eyes of God. If it has ever failed to be that, I am not aware of it.

The homosexual movement could not conquer the church from without, so they have decided to take her from within.

[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".