Common Myths about Gay Christians

[The Matt]

Just my two cents...I believe ANY person seeking Jesus should be accepted, and nobody should be condemned for a sin. However if a person presents themself as gay, I believe they should understand very quickly the biblical definition of homosexual. I feel the same way about convicted rapists, only difference is I feel the church as a whole should know (I haven't figured out a good way to let the church know except word of mouth) that so and so has been convicted of such and such.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by mfblume

As an individual you are not married to Jesus. Only the church body corporately is the bride. We each individually are children of God, and brothers and sisters of the Son.

It was a joke bro. lol

My point is that we're rejecting an entire class of people based on "terminology" they've chosen to use in this cultural climate. For generations people used the terms "black church" and "white church". Sunday was (and still is in some areas) the most segregated day of the week. People have a way of choosing terms based on cultural relevance and experience. Should Jesus tarry and homosexuality cease to be the second unpardonable sin... we might see "gay Christians" (people who have same gender attraction or temptations) starting to simply call themselves... "Christians". But until then... do you think I care what they call themselves if they are inquiring about Jesus? No. I don't. Because getting them closer to Jesus (even with some of their misconceptions) is far more important than criticizing the earthly terms they use. Many "gay Christians" reach out to "gay lost people" and teach them that they can find the love of God and the strength to live for Christ. That matters far more than the fact that they use the term "gay" in front of the term "Christian". Like I said, it's like the "Cutter Christians" that spoke at the youth rally. They were identifying themselves with cutters. Why? To REACH them. Paul said,

1 Corinthians 9:19-21
English Standard Version (ESV)
19 For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. 20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. 21 To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law.

These brothers and sisters simply have one angle Paul, you, and I don't have. They are gay. They've been there and done that. They can speak to gays as... a gay. Why find fault with that as long as they are leading broken men and women to Christ?

We don't criticize people for calling themselves "Messianic Christians".

My point is... terminology isn't as important as motive and fruit. If they can reach gay people by calling themselves "gay Christians"... I certainly don't care what they call themselves.

After all... some of our terms are odd sounding to outsiders too. Like you and me being the bride of Christ. Get wedding garment on bro... we're going to marry a Jewish carpenter. lol

Terms can't be judged based on how they initially sound.

[Aquila]

"Gay Christian"

It's like saying,

- Messianic Christian
- Apostolic Christian
- Spirit Filled Christian
- Pentecostal Christian
- Holiness Christian
- Evangelical Christian
- Judeo Christian
- Creedal Christian
- Confessionl Christian
- Pretribulational Christian
- Midtribulational Christian
- Pre-Wrath Christian
- Post Tribulational Christian
- Preterist Christian
(and the list could go on and on...)

People use terms with relation to context. Most above would simply call themselves "Christian". Including some of the "gay Christians" that I know. However, when reaching out to the gay community or trying to help remove un-called for hatred or stigma that hinders gay seekers from coming to the cross... the term "gay Christian" is no doubt a quite useful for them.

My point is... if they are pressing in to the crowd of this culture to get a closer look at Jesus, and some stand to a chance to be conformed into His image... I don't care what they call themselves. Besides... technically... in a sense, we all should be "gay" Christians:

Definition of GAY
1a : happily excited : merry <in a gay mood> b : keenly alive and exuberant : having or inducing high spirits <a bird's gay spring song>

Some of you guys need to laugh and love a little more. Become a "gay Christian". lol

[Truthseeker]

Originally Posted by Aquila

"Gay Christian"

It's like saying,

- Messianic Christian
- Apostolic Christian
- Spirit Filled Christian
- Pentecostal Christian
- Holiness Christian
- Evangelical Christian
- Judeo Christian
- Creedal Christian
- Confessionl Christian
- Pretribulational Christian
- Midtribulational Christian
- Pre-Wrath Christian
- Post Tribulational Christian
- Preterist Christian
(and the list could go on and on...)

People use terms with relation to context. Most above would simply call themselves "Christian". Including some of the "gay Christians" that I know. However, when reaching out to the gay community or trying to help remove un-called for hatred or stigma that hinders gay seekers from coming to the cross... the term "gay Christian" is no doubt a quite useful for them.

My point is... if they are pressing in to the crowd of this culture to get a closer look at Jesus, and some stand to a chance to be conformed into His image... I don't care what they call themselves. Besides... technically... in a sense, we all should be "gay" Christians:

Definition of GAY
1a : happily excited : merry <in a gay mood> b : keenly alive and exuberant : having or inducing high spirits <a bird's gay spring song>

Some of you guys need to laugh and love a little more. Become a "gay Christian". lol

SSSTTTTRRRREEECCCCCTTHHHHHHH! we not are to identify with a sinful lifestyle. old things passed away, right? What happened to identify with in Christ alone.

[Truthseeker]

amazing, some things are so simple it shouldnt even be a discussion.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

SSSTTTTRRRREEECCCCCTTHHHHHHH! we not are to identify with a sinful lifestyle. old things passed away, right? What happened to identify with in Christ alone.

You're not understanding me. You're just choosing to differ for difference sake because this is the "gay issue".

Of course I believe we are not be identified by sinful lifestyles. However, if Christians who happen to relate to homosexual sin and temptation wish to use the term as part of their outreach to gays... no harm done really.

It would be like rebuking the "Cutter Christians" who teach young people who cut themselves that, "Jesus was cut for the cutter.", merely because they used the term "Cutter Christians". Of course, I'm sure you'll say that you'd rebuke them too just to be consistent. But I'd wager dollars to doughnuts you'd not rebuke them if they came to your church with their story and reached out to the youth and their friends who might be cutters. This is just another example of singling out a specific class of sinner to surrender them to the flames of further hatred and criticism.

I believe homosexuality is a sin as much as anyone here. However, I'm going to tell the truth. And I'm going to call it like it is. Being gay isn't the unforgiveable sin. Struggling with homosexuality isn't an unforgiveable sin. And as long as they are seeking to be like Christ in all things, they are brothers and sisters in Christ, regardless of the temptations they face from time to time. While we're wrangling over the terms they've chosen to use... many "gay ministries" are reaching out to save the souls of men and women struggling with this. What's more important... the wrangling over a term... or reaching a soul for Christ?

So please try to understand what I'm actually saying.

[Truthseeker]

Originally Posted by Aquila

You're not understanding me. You're just choosing to differ for difference sake because this is the "gay issue".

Of course I believe we are not be identified by sinful lifestyles. However, if Christians who happen to relate to homosexual sin and temptation wish to use the term as part of their outreach to gays... no harm done really.

It would be like rebuking the "Cutter Christians" who teach young people who cut themselves that, "Jesus was cut for the cutter.", merely because they used the term "Cutter Christians". Of course, I'm sure you'll say that you'd rebuke them too just to be consistent. But I'd wager dollars to doughnuts you'd not rebuke them if they came to your church with their story and reached out to the youth and their friends who might be cutters. This is just another example of singling out a specific class of sinner to surrender them to the flames of further hatred and criticism.

Come down off your cloud and try to understand what I'm actually saying.

I prefer the clouds, seated in heavenly places. No gayness, cutting, liars, whoremonging there. a place of new creation.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Aquila

It was a joke bro. lol

(sigh of relief). Okay. lol

I know you were tongue in cheek, but some actually do look at themselves individually as the bride of Christ, though. They do not realize there is a distinction between individuality and corporate church body.

[Orthodoxy]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I believe homosexuality is a sin as much as anyone here.

I think we need to define terms one more time. Some of us are not speaking the same language here.

Aquila, when you say, "Homosexuality is a sin," do you mean that a person who experiences daily, unwanted, exclusive, same sex impulses is sinning? If so, he must have to be repenting, like, 24/7. Just like a heterosexual would have to be constantly repenting if an opposite-sex orientation was wrong.

Or, from what I understand from your posts, I think you could more precisely say, "Homosexual behavior or homosexual fantasy is a sin."

Truthseeker insists that the adjective "gay" or "homosexual" automatically implies sin. (Like "fornicating Christian.") But I think the terms "gay" and "straight" are amoral (neither right nor wrong). It just depends on how you act out those desires. For gay people, faithfulness might mean celibacy. For straight people, faithfulness might mean monogamous marriage.

[houston]

Really, Aquila? SMH