I can’t help but wonder just how many other prominent Christians need to come out before evangelicals realise that sexuality is not such a black and white issue?
What is Allyc saying? First, who is saying that sexuality is black and white? What does that even mean? And what would the number of any type of people confessing to have given in to a particular sin have to do with the complexity of sexuality? And what does the complexity of a thing have to do with whether or not there is a right versus wrong?
One of the issues I run into a lot when interacting with people regarding sin is they don't first settle in their mind what God's attitude is toward a given issue. They look at the complexity, and believe me, it can be complex, and then try to formulate truth. I recommend first settling what we know about a given topic and then try to sort out the fuzzy edges.
Bottom line, Allyc is one that harbors disdain toward evangelicals, doesn't understand the clarity of Scripture on this topic, and is moved by the opinion of others over and above what Scripture teaches.
Allyc later writes:
Who the hell had the right to tell us we’re so unloved, rejected by God? We’re not created for all this shame, it’s not ours to hold. I say this as someone who is still very much in the midst of the struggle to relearn the Truth… but this much I do know. We are His. Beloved. Redeemed. Forgiven. We are His.
He is responding to a practicing homosexuality who said, "I’m tired of going to family functions where those closest to me think I have been deceived by satan." Allyc takes issue with the Apostle Paul, etc... He demonstrates his own lack of understanding of basic Christianity and confuses not only the issue of homosexuality but also salvation. Allyc thinks all are forgiven and redeemed. Apparently he has not read the Bible.
He proves these assumptions more true as he interacts later in an attempt to define sin. He thinks that sin is "a thought, action, or behaviour that hurts another person." And then wonders why being gay is a sin. He's right, if one discounts God's Word, then that's a good question. But I cannot do that so all he does here is show us that he is simply one dressed up as a Christian with little to no knowledge of truth and happy to encourage others in their sin.
To further reinforce, he later talks about how much he has learned from Rob Bell in Velvet Elvis and that the fall wasn't so much about disobedience as it was about a shift in the balance of a good creation to one that wasn't. Oh oh ... no time for Rob Bell here ...
Technorati Tags: homosexuality
5 comments:
Rick,
I appreciate your wrestling with this topic. I think it is one that the Church must wrestle with now and into the future. Unfortunately, the sides (Gay Supporters and Evangelicals) often speak past one another.
Have your read Andrew Marin's book? I think he offers a third way in this debate and a potential path for evangelicals to tread as we attempt to relate to and evangelize the gay community.
Here is a question for you. At what point in relationship with people struggling with sin, do they allow you to "go there" with them? That is, when do they allow you to speak into their lives? I know a bit about the tradition you swim in (Vineyard) as I am a Vineyard pastor and I know from reading your blog you lead a small group. I totally agree with you that we need to figure out God's perspective toward sin. And, I totally agree with you that we need to speak into people's lives to help them understand sin, call sin sin, and repent of sin. I'm interested in (maybe you could blog about it) your experience with how this works out in church or in small group?
Where I think I disagree with you, or at least it seems like this is your perspective, is that having relationship with you requires the other come to your position on this issue first. Or at least to traverse some of the relational terrain before they do.
I don't think relationship works like that. No matter what the sin issue is, until I have developed significant relationship with people, they just don't let me in to their lives, especially not to the level where I can confront them on sin. This just is what it is, until someone is ready to face their stuff, or until God reveals it to them, they don't let people into it.
I fear this is what will keep the evangelical church from ever being effective in this area. I think the first step is meeting people where they are. Allowing them to engage relationally with myself and with the church and ultimately with God. Then, as relationship develops, the sin issues become a part of our relationship. It seems to me, this is what happens anyway. I can eventually press peoples buttons, or as I like to say, poke people where it hurts a little.
Your perspective here, makes it sound like you want gay people to enter relationship with God and the church at a higher stage than you would require of someone dealing with other sin issues.
My take.
I'd love to see you wrestle with this in a post. I think you have something to offer b/c your are doing pastoral care with people on a weekly basis in sm. gp and I assume through ministry at the church - like prayer ministry, outreach, etc.
Jason
Is this Jason of Jason Clark? If so, yes, we have a lot in common and I read your blog and other writing regularly. Good stuff.
Your questions here are great. I tried to reply here but couldn't squeeze it in. They aren't simple so maybe I'll just make a lot of little posts out of them.
Jason - I should start by saying as soon as I read your comment I thought, "crap, I wish I would have titled that Unhelpful Advise Offered to Homosexuals rather than saying Stupid Advise Offered to Homosexuals." I'll fix that going forward.
I started to write a post in reply and it got really long. Then I stepped back and realized that in principle, I agree with just about everything you say. So let me just put the more difficult piece here and see where that goes.
I'm not writing about walking up to strangers and engaging them about their sexuality (or any other sin issues). I'm addressing Christians saying deviant sexuality is ok.
What if I walk up to a stranger and they say, "hey, I'm a liar, if your God is loving, He should be ok with that right?" Well, no ...
What if I walk up to a stranger and they say, "hey, I'm in multiple extra-marital sexual relations, God made me to love the ladies and well, a man just can't help himself, God's ok with that, right?" Well no ...
What if I walk up to a stranger and they say, "I'm in a sexual relationship with a minor but they love me, it's just foolish man-made laws made by puritans that's the issue, right?" Well no ...
To these and many others we can imagine I'd have to respond, "no, sorry..." I don't need to yell it. I certainly am not walking around with signs yelling and looking for these. I don't need to tell them they are going to hell. Etc...
It seems to me we know how to respond to these so for me, I don't see homosexuality as different. Confronting sin will take on many different forms depending on the nature of the relationship, the degree of the sin, the understanding and maturity of those involved, etc...
There's no formula here. But I haven't found a reason yet to tell someone God accepts their sin, that the sin is not sin, etc...
So, I'm not sure I'm answering the questions. Please continue to chip away.
Hey Rick. This is Jason Smith. http://jasonsmith.wordpress.com
Unfortunately, there are Christians that have taken up an evangelism style that uses "telling people they are sinners" as a strategy. I.e. Ray Comfort. First step = comparing your life to the 10 commandments and then going straight to the consequences of sin. I don't know if that is the best approach.
I don't think the current argument of "what's the difference b/w my sin and your sin" is helpful. Which, is what Jennifer did in the Larry King interview. We are all sinners, but as we live the sanctified life, we should be becoming less of a sinner and more of a virtuous person. It appears to me, that Paul especially, but most of the NT writers understand sexual sin as different from other sin. Sexual sin is something that defiles the whole person and God at the same time, b/c God lives in us. (At least, that appears to be Paul's perspective).
What I wrestle with is, how will we ever "actually" reach gay people? Especially, if we start with that? I am doing a series on 1 John right now, and one of John's themes, is that as a follower of Jesus, the Christ (Messiah), we have been given an anointing (the Spirit and the Word - Revelation) which leads us into a virtuous life. The evidence of this submission, is transformation.
Can people submit to Jesus as the Messiah and be gay? I think for me, which I get from Andrew marin, the first step with gay persons is can you submit to Jesus as Messiah (both savior AND Lord). If they can, I believe the Spirit of Truth and the Word of Life will dramatically change their perspective on their sexuality. But, it probably won't be an overnight transformation, just as a drug addict might not experience an overnight freedom from the addiction. Although, I do believe that can happen and have met people who claim it happened to them.
Because of this, I think our posture towards gay people should be one of affirmation of their humanity. And a willingness to allow them to be who they are while they engage God thru Christ in the power of the Spirit. churches that will do this...could have significant impact. But, it will be difficult to convince churches to do this in the current landscape.
The question then becomes, well, when do we get to challenge their sinfulness? That is a hard question to answer, because as a pastor, I find that very few people are willing to let me speak into their lives like that. It takes time and significant relationship. And, even then, sometimes, when you push someone's buttons or poke them about these issues, they turn and run.
John says, if they left us, did they ever really belong to us? I think there comes a time when you call someone out and if it results in tuck and run, you have to question if they had ever submitted to Christ or the church? (It appears that Jennifer Knapp did just that, she just left and in the meantime, decided she wanted to be gay more than she wanted to live in the tension.)
But I think our posture at the beginning must change. By no means, do I think the answer is affirming homosexuality as normative or as healthy or unsinfull, or whatever. It seems that is the direction we are headed in America. You either think homosexuality is not sin, or is, and there is no third way. That's why I think Marin's book is important.
Hope that helps with my position. I know you have done some work interacting with folks hoping to reach the gay community. I'd like to see you outline an approach. Especially with Youth? It appears to me that the Youth (5th thru 12th grade) is really where this issue is happening in our churches. Kids struggling with their sexuality can't talk about this and can't wrestle it out without feeling left out and left behind. I'd like to see the Vineyard develop some intentional thoughts and ideas about this.
Sorry for the long comment.
Jason - thanks for the response.
1) I don't know much of Ray Comfort but a two-step approach as a norm to anything doesn't strike me as a good thing.
2) I agree with your take on sin v. sin v. sexual sin
3) Re: how we reach gay people? I wrestle with that in a different way, that is, should we reach any specific people as opposed to just reach people. Separately, I'm not sure we would reach them differently than anyone else - except that many of us are ignorant regarding sexual sin and for some reason react to this differently (typically with repulsion) than other sins/temptations.
4) "Can people submit to Jesus as the Messiah and be gay?" This is hard in that we need to define "being gay". Many sin issues share this complexity. Is the person wrestling with unwanted same sex attraction, have they identified themselves as homosexual but are not in a relationship, are they practicing homosexuality, are they active in affirming to others that homosexuality is not a sin, etc...??? A minister of the Gospel would interact with me differently depending on where I am in that spectrum. Certainly affirming it is "ok" would not be appropriate regardless of where I am in that.
Separately, when I came to Christ I didn't fully know all of my sins and I certainly didn't instantly stop. And I'm also confident I will sin again today. Will I be "unsaved"? No. But in the end, I'm not sure of the necessity of the question because the solution is always the same, grow in the knowledge of the glory of God, love and obey Him, love and submit to others, etc...
4) So with that said, it isn't a question of when do I challenge sinfulness, the answer is all of the time. The better question is how do I do it and as I read the rest of your comment, I think we are tracking the same.
5) I haven't read Marin's book, but you are the second person to recommend it. My initial reaction is I'm nervous when someone talks about a third way. That doesn't mean it's wrong, I'm just nervous. I think we have a right way that starts with this is sin but then sadly too often goes off track in how we deal with folks. I'm hesitant to call what is needed a third way, it's more of a restored or corrected first way.
The key reason is that the phrase third way implies there is something in between the first and second way. At the initial level, we should be asking if we are dealing with sin or not, i.e., is there a right and wrong here? I think the answer is yes, this is sin and the sin is real. I think our problem is more at the next level, that is how we interact with those wrestling with various levels of overcoming (or embracing) sin.
I really like Jesus' example in John 4 ...he called out her sin without the need for some extended relationship building but he did it in a way that offered life. In a way, both he and the disciples confronted her but they were worlds apart ... and elsewhere we learn that condoning sin is not a right option. So to me, there are two ways, address sin (Jesus and the disciples), or condone it. The second way leads to death. Then within the first way, there are two ways, one that leads to life (Jesus') and one that leads to legalism and death (the disciples). It's not so much a third way as it is a right first way.
My two cents worth anyway ...
Post a Comment