Common Myths about Gay Christians

[bbyrd009]

Originally Posted by Falla39

My husband's cousin still declares himself an alcohoic even though he hasn't touched a drop in 12 yrs. I would think it would be better to say "a former alcoholic" or, "such WAS I". But then I wasn't an alcoholic, etc. Husband's cousin doesn't claim to be a Christian, or say he's an "alcoholic Christian" either.

Falla39

That is a chief and recognized deficiency in the 12 step model, and it applies here; you just hang on to that hurt as long as you need to, and then see that when you no longer identify with it is when it will lose its final hold over you. When you begin to describe yourself as a former ______ , the dichotomy quickly becomes clear, and you lose the identity soon after. I would encourage anyone in this position to begin referring to themselves as a "former," asap, and see.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Falla39

My husband's cousin still declares himself an alcohoic even though he hasn't touched a drop in 12 yrs. I would think it would be better to say "a former alcoholic" or, "such WAS I". But then I wasn't an alcoholic, etc. Husband's cousin doesn't claim to be a Christian, or say he's an "alcoholic Christian" either.

Falla39

Wait... I have to comment here...

There is a false teaching flying here. First, it's said that if you were an alcoholic (or anything else for that matter) and then you’re born again you’re a “new creature”. That’s taken by many to mean that you are not what you used to be. But they are NOT putting this into a biblical context.

First, when one is born again, the Holy Ghost unites their SPIRIT with the Spirit of God bringing eternal life and a new nature to the person’s SPIRIT. By partaking in the divine nature through the work of Jesus Christ and the power of the Spirit a person becomes a “new creature”, meaning a new kind of creature. They are now a human being who is one with God through the Holy Ghost. They now have a new sinless nature to their human spirit. They are…Regenerated.

However, the soul of a person (the psyche, or mind) still needs to be renewed (carnal mind). They may still very well be what they were before mentally (in the soul). As their minds are renewed they are changed with regards to the soul. This is why we may not want certain people with emotional or psychological addictions to go certain places…even though they are born again.

Also, the body of a person (the flesh) may also continue to be prone to a given addiction. For examples the alcoholics body responds to alcohol differently from lets say non-alcoholics. There still may be hormonal imbalances, conditions, etc. Just because someone with a genetic disorder or anomaly is born again and becomes a “new creature” (in their spirit) it doesn’t mean that they physiologically or genetically change. Who would tell a born again recovered alcoholic that it’s okay to just have a “sip”? Who??? I’m praying none of you would. Why? Because we know that while they might be “new creatures” with regards to their spirits…they are still in the flesh and the flesh has yet to be raised, glorified, perfect, and incorruptible.

So a born again alcoholic is indeed that… a born again alcoholic. He or she is a “new creature” with regards to their spirit…but their flesh is still an alcoholic. Else we’d not care and maybe we might even encourage a “sip” for them to prove to the world that they are changed and can handle it.

So don’t mock that born again saint that has gone to AA, cleaned their act up, mended their broken family, and has humbled themselves before God as being powerless against alcohol who says, “I’m an alcoholic.”, or “I’m a born again alcoholic.”

Now, let’s translate this to the subject of this thread. If homosexuals have an innate predisposition in their flesh (flesh is fallen and sinful) towards a certain sinful behavior (as with people that have improper hormonal levels in the brain lending to wrath and violence)… unless they receive a miraculous healing in their flesh (perhaps even down to the hormonal or genetic level)… they may always have said tendencies. If born again, they are a “new creature” with regards to their spirit...but their flesh is very much still the same ol’ flesh it was before being saved. It’s just now the nature of their spirit is holy and their flesh is fallen and sinful like everyone else’s. Now the war between flesh and spirit is on. This is why a “new creature” still has to discipline and mortify their flesh. If they were entirely made a new creature, the sinful nature of the flesh would be eradicated and they’d live without sin effortlessly. The truth is… in the spiritual sense, they are “new creatures”. In the natural sense, the flesh is still gay. And as long as the flesh is a part of them… or for as long as they go without being physically healed… they will be both gay and born again. They will only cease being gay, as it relates to the flesh, when their bodies are raised, glorified, perfected, and without a sinful nature.

I just had to clarify something I’ve been reading that was getting to me. Most don’t understand, or forget about, the various elements of salvation as it relates to justification, regeneration, adoption, sanctification, and final glorification when addressing subject they ASSUME are simple, or cut and dry.

[Aquila]

If a born again alcoholic is no longer an alcoholic and is entirely a "new creature" (body, soul, and spirit)... I guess there would be no problem with allowing them to take a sip of whisky or have a glass of wine next New Year's Eve... right???

Wrong!

Their flesh is still prone to alcohol abuse. And let me tell you my dearest brothers and sisters... that means that with regards to the flesh, the flesh they have is still alcoholic...even though their spirits have a new nature through the Holy Ghost.

Same with gays.

You guys are so good with theoretical banter and moral chest beating. But the APPLICATION and IMPLICATIONS of your logic are tragic.

[Aquila]

Porn and sex addiction. It's primarily based on a chemical dependency upon the dopamine that is released in the brain as a result of sexual pleasure. They are drug addicts. Should a born again sex addict not fear going to adult oriented locations or viewing adult material??? After all... they are no longer sex addicts right??? They are "new creatures" right??? Wrong. Their fallen flesh still has a propensity towards dopamine dependency in the brain. They have to be CAREFUL and discipline, mortify, the flesh and it's sinful, carnal, nature. It would do them well to remember that they are addicts. Even though they are born again so they do not play with fire.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Aquila

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

I have answered your question, however, I do have a tendency to say things in a way that leaves people wondering what it was that I said (myself included on occasion).

Originally Posted by Aquila

Now... regarding the "rapture". False doctrine is sin. Only one eschatology is truth. All others are false doctrines, distortions, and lies.

Actually, I have to disagree with you here. I would say that most of the views of the timing of the rapture are more just different understandings of Scripture, and any one of them might be correct. Any of them might be incorrect, however as long as the various groups do not permit disruption in fellowship and say that the in the end only God knows, there is no sin present.

Originally Posted by Aquila

So... we all agree that the term "gay Christian" isn't absolutely necessary and an argument can be made that any hyphenated Christian term isn't biblical. Theologically speaking, we're all just "Christians". We agree on the principle. However... that's only half of the issue. The second half is... what do we do about it? So we have a theoretical precept that we agree upon and believe is biblical. Now... how is that precept applied???

Do we disassociate with those faithful and celibate believers who insist on calling themselves "gay Christians"??? My point is, I don't think we should, especially seeing that they are being faithful to Christ and not engaging in sin. I can't help what they choose to call themselves. I can not like it, or even prefer that they use a different term like just "Christian". But the REALITY is that they use this term. While you guys are posing strong reasons why it should be rejected... you're not demonstrating how to apply it... especially with those who are obedient born again Christians who will look you in the eyes and say, "No, I'm a gay Christian." How do you apply your position???

That's why I say just let people call themselves what they wish. Sure, it may not always be biblical. We call ourselves "Apostolic" but historically we do very little, with the exception of baptism, the way the Apostles did. And we call ourselves, "Apostolic Christians". Sometimes, "Apostolic Pentecostal Christians". Sometimes, "Oneness Christians". Sometimes "Liberal Apostolic". Sometimes "Moderate Apostolic". Sometimes "Conservative Apostolic"... and the list can go on and on. Do we go on a crusade to correct everyone's self ascribed labels? Or should we simply acknowledge them as individuals who have chosen a label and seek to understand them and draw them closer to Christ?

A good example is Socialism and Communism. They sound beautiful to many theoretically on paper. However, their application in the REAL world would be an absolute disaster.

While the more conservative theoretical notion that the term "gay Christian" shouldn't be used is biblical and logical... Would it's application in the real world bring more division, arguments, and strife to the body of Christ in a battle over "wording"? Or would it really be something that would bring those born again obedient believers together in unity?

I'm afraid that while the idea that the term "gay Christian" shouldn't be used is logical... in the real world trying to eradicate it's usage will only bring more harm than good to the body. So we should accept the term (perhaps with some reservation) and then seek to understand the individual PEOPLE behind the label.

But some will stay say, "Waaaa... I don't like that term." So what? I don't either, but some BROTHERS and SISTERS use it and will continue to. Get over it. Welcome to planet earth! lol

Can ANYONE see what I'm trying to say???

Jeesh... I feel like no one is really getting it.

I believe that this is where we disagree on this issue. I do not see the similarities between an identification with a lifestyle that God calls an abomination and identifying which 'brand' we belong to in the Christian world. My feelings about the term are irrelevant. However, what is relevant is the understanding of the people who are outside of the church.

Originally Posted by Aquila

What's wrong with letting people define and then explain themselves without prejudging them?

The problem is that no one ever truly defines themselves. This is why we have these types of discussions. Perception is reality. And what we call ourselves will determine how others see us. This it true when one calls themselves Apostolic, gay, atheist, Democrat, or any other label that one chooses to wear. We are defined by the terms that we choose.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Jay

I have answered your question, however, I do have a tendency to say things in a way that leaves people wondering what it was that I said (myself included on occasion).

I do that too. Lol

Actually, I have to disagree with you here. I would say that most of the views of the timing of the rapture are more just different understandings of Scripture, and any one of them might be correct. Any of them might be incorrect, however as long as the various groups do not permit disruption in fellowship and say that the in the end only God knows, there is no sin present.

You’re correct in that any view of the rapture might be correct. However, in the end, we will indeed see which view was closest to the true interpretation of the text. That relegates all over views to being false doctrine (false teaching). If a preacher preaches the Pre-Tribulational Rapture (especially as dogma) and the truth is closer to Orthodox Preterism, that preacher is guilty of preaching a false doctrine, a lie. Now, if all believers teach or preach their view as “opinion”… and many ministers do…I see no sin committed because before God and man they only voiced an opinion. This is why I fear the UPCI’s position against any eschatology that isn’t based on Futurism. What if they are wrong? They’ve divided the body and set terms of dogma to the doctrine…when the future might prove them absolutely wrong. That is sin brother.

I believe that this is where we disagree on this issue. I do not see the similarities between an identification with a lifestyle that God calls an abomination and identifying which 'brand' we belong to in the Christian world. My feelings about the term are irrelevant. However, what is relevant is the understanding of the people who are outside of the church.

Ah, but to many, including myself, the term “gay” only means one is attracted to the same gender. It doesn’t say anything about lifestyle. A man can be “gay” and married. A man can be “gay” and be a celibate Christian. A man can be “gay” and be a Reformed Jew. A man might be “gay” and be an active heathen atheist. A man might be “gay” and be an Episcopal in a “committed relationship” (as they call them). In fact, there is a leading theologian in Reformed Calvinist circles who is an outstanding theologian (agree with him or not) and he revealed that he was “gay” but celibate, dedicated to Christ. His name eludes me at the moment. However, my point is that the term “gay” doesn’t say anything about “lifestyle”. It speaks of “orientation”. And one’s orientation is determined by a number of factors ranging from environmental, emotional, and biological (hormonal and genetic). In my mind, and among most of the people I know, the term "gay" says nothing about lifestyle. It only speaks of orientation.

Also, given my understanding of the ancient world and eunuchs, I’m convinced that “gay” people have been with us throughout most of human history. And many of them were devout eunuchs in the ancient world. Many were also abused and used as objects by pagan societies. Many were regarded as social outcasts. Those who were eunuchs on the grounds of castration couldn’t even worship in the tabernacle or the temple. However, we do read in history that those eunuchs who were not castrated did enter the temple. When it comes to eunuchs we see them in royal courts, attending harems, and on chariots listening to the Gospel being preached from the scroll of Isaiah. Others were strongly denounced by Clement for their debauchery. Regardless, they were a distinct class in ancient societies. Many were castrated as slaves or prisoners. Many were born with deformity and no doubt faced hormonal challenges. Some were born without a “lust for women” and were soft spoken like women as ancient Roman writings explain. Some underwent a ceremonial rite as a religious duty in their culture. Each had a given lifestyle. And many were very noble and holy.

Most individuals outside the church are not impressed with the phobia that has been present in the church in previous generations. Many very informed and intelligent people wonder why the church has taken such a denouncing position of something that can be interpreted differently. They see it as though the church has two interpretations before it. The church has chosen the more traditional and dogmatic position. Consider how Santorum is repeatedly booed by the majority of “conservative” voters when he denounces gay marriage or homosexuals. Now, that doesn’t make them right. But my point is that… we shouldn’t care so much about what the world thinks. Only God Himself will draw the souls He desires to save.

The problem is that no one ever truly defines themselves. This is why we have these types of discussions. Perception is reality. And what we call ourselves will determine how others see us. This it true when one calls themselves Apostolic, gay, atheist, Democrat, or any other label that one chooses to wear. We are defined by the terms that we choose.

Perception is not reality. Perception is like…well… perception is… PERCEPTION. LOL

For example, saints that don’t wear wedding bands. If perception IS REALITY are they just shacked up seeing that our culture recognizes marriage socially through wedding bands? Let me tell you a story about when I first heard this phrase….I was a Sunday school teacher at the time and the pastor had monitors installed in the Sunday school department so that those working in the office could keep an eye on service and know when it wrapping up. One 10 year old kid was upset that his parents got rid of their television. One day I had him be my “helper” to the Sunday school office. He saw the monitors and became very despondent. Apparently he went home and told his mom that we had televisions in the Sunday school office. Now, instead of the pastor EDUCATING this child about the monitors…the pastor ordered that the monitors be yanked out of the Sunday school department. When I was talking to him about it I mentioned that I felt it wasn’t necessary. He said, “Well, perception is reality brother.” BALONEY! Educate the boy! My goodness a ten year old kid’s misunderstanding caused the entire church to hop and change something that was working quite well for a long time before the kid got to us. Fear. Fear of criticism. Cowardice. Being too lazy to really EDUCATE. That’s all it was. Perception isn’t reality… perception is just a perception. If we find that here is an inaccurate perception, we correct it with information and facts. Plain and simple. I’m not going to run scared worrying about what someone’s perception might be.

Most people in the world hear the term “gay Christian” and they ask, “Wow. How’d you pull that one off?” That allows the gay person to say, “I’m gay, but I’m a devoted follower of Jesus.” Frankly, the world has no issue with the concept. It’s typically the ultra conservative to conservative folks that have an issue with it because they are worried about what people “might” think. Lol

[Jay]

I believe that we shall have to agree to disagree with all Christian charity. However, I suppose that I have drawn a distinction between homosexual attractions and the gay lifestyle. I do believe that the perceptions that we have of people are the reality as far as we are concerned. This is why I attempt great care to never give deliberate offense, but I do believe that we should take greater care in how we allow ourselves to be identified. Identifying with a group that claims that you can live a gay lifestyle, attend church, and make heaven your eternal home is something to be avoided.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Jay

I believe that we shall have to agree to disagree with all Christian charity. However, I suppose that I have drawn a distinction between homosexual attractions and the gay lifestyle. I do believe that the perceptions that we have of people are the reality as far as we are concerned. This is why I attempt great care to never give deliberate offense, but I do believe that we should take greater care in how we allow ourselves to be identified. Identifying with a group that claims that you can live a gay lifestyle, attend church, and make heaven your eternal home is something to be avoided.

Pretty much sums it up. Jay, I was glad to read your posts when I got in from work tonight.

Thank you!

[Jay]

Hoovie, thank you for your encouragement.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Jay

I believe that we shall have to agree to disagree with all Christian charity. However, I suppose that I have drawn a distinction between homosexual attractions and the gay lifestyle. I do believe that the perceptions that we have of people are the reality as far as we are concerned. This is why I attempt great care to never give deliberate offense, but I do believe that we should take greater care in how we allow ourselves to be identified. Identifying with a group that claims that you can live a gay lifestyle, attend church, and make heaven your eternal home is something to be avoided.

I see that as being in bondage to the opinions of men. Sometimes the Gospel is offensive. It will offend the sinner in that it demands that they acknowledge their sin and that they need a Savior. It will offend the religiously self righteous in that it declares the sorrowful whore, homosexual, and drunkard children of God, with all their struggles, failures, and spiritual poverty atoned for. My Christianity is wild, edgy, gritty, and real. I firmly believe that if Jesus were on earth today He'd prefer hanging out on Beal St. with "gay Christians" who are wounded and committed to Him, the drunkard with questions, and the troubled young cutter who has run away from home than the stuffy Pentecostals or Baptists with their nice suits, padded pews, stained glass windows, four point sermons, denouncing born again believers over the term "gay Christian". He'd stare at them and say, "They love me and are seeking me, in spite of their hell."