Open Forum: McClurkin Turns Obama Gospel Concert Into Ex-Gay Harangue
At Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s gospel concert in South Carolina this weekend, singer and ex-gay activist Donnie McClurkin had an opportunity to take the high road: Show good will and extend an olive branch toward his gay co-singers and audience members.
Instead, according to the New York Times political blog, The Caucus, McClurkin took the low road.
The whole controversy might have been forgotten in the swell of gospel sound except Mr. McClurkin turned the final half hour of the three-hour concert into a revival meeting about the lightning rod he has become for the Obama campaign.
He approached the subject gingerly at first. Then, just when the concert had seemed to reach its pitch and about to end, Mr. McClurkin returned to it with a full-blown plea: “Don’t call me a bigot or anti-gay when I have suffered the same feelings,” he cried.
“God delivered me from homosexuality,” he added. He then told the audience to believe the Bible over the blogs: “God is the only way.” The crowd sang and clapped along in full support.
As XGW has noted previously, pro-tolerance advocates do not object to McClurkin’s decision to identify as ex-gay and to refrain from homosexual behavior. They object because McClurkin:
- told The 700 Club — a Christian media outlet — that same-sex-attracted persons are child-killers and vowed to wage “war” — not peace nor Christian outreach — against gay people
- mischaracterizes his ongoing sexual attraction to men as if it were fully overcome and declines to discuss his lack of significant attraction to women
- asserts that because a handful of individuals with unstable or fluid sexual attraction claim to change, anyone can
In reaction to the initial controversy, Obama sought to deflect charges of antigay bias by including a gay Christian representative in the tour. But Obama passed over two black gay pastors and two black gay-affirming pastors and instead hired a white gay pastor, the Rev. Andy Sidden. According to CNN’s Political Ticker blog, Sidden appeared only briefly at the concert, before much of the audience had even arrived, and refrained from mentioning sexuality.
South Carolina African-American gay activist Alvin McEwen attended a small protest outside the concert and wrote his observations:
No matter how many times it was emphasized that none of us care about McClurkin’s personal decisions regarding his orientation, folks have continued to claim that we are angry at McClurkin’s belief that he is “ex-gay” rather than his statements against the lgbt community.
Hat tip: AmericaBlog
My point was not that Peter had broken the Golden Rule, but that his theological understanding (and the theological understanding of those like him) make him unable to show “acceptance and respect” for your life choices. In his view, your life choices are sin, and he would be violating his convictions by doing so.
You’re out of luck. Sorry.
Doesn’t matter what life you lived, how you may have wrestled with the issue for years, how much you prayed and cried and pondered and re-read the Bible. You’re made the wrong choice, so no soup for you.
Christopher’s absolutely right to say that it’s a theological issue and that I would be violating my convictions to tell you that I thought that you were doing the right thing. But it is possible you know to respect somebody while disagreeing with them.
For example, if some non-Christian friends of mine got a Civil Partnership and invited me to the ceremony, I’d probably go. I mean, they’re not Christians so why should I insist they have the same moral standards as myself? But if some Christian friends of mine invited me to their Civil Partnership I’d politely decline. Why? Because as Christians I would feel they were making the wrong choice and I couldn’t support them in that.
William – you’re absolutely right. I haven’t met a single guy either who has ssa and hasn’t prayed it wasn’t so. But when they come to me I tell them that the real journey they have to make is to die to self, and that involves dying to ones desires for the future, placing them instead in the hands of God and letting him be in charge of their lives. “Thy will be done”. I don’t lead anybody up the garden path. I tell them very clearly that there is no definite sunny garden path, only a narrow winding road that might take them anywhere God wants to take them, including life-long celibacy with no change in sexual attractions.
That makes me much more “catholic” in my approach and far less like the (majority) evangelical groups who claim automatic victory this side of glory. From all our experiences we know that just isn’t true.
I’m now off out for the day, but I’ll try and reply to folks when I get back in (prob towards lunchtime your end in the US)
Congratulations Peter. You’ve just met a man that has never asked God to have his ssa taken away.
I have put my faith and trust in God (above the Bible and the Church) yet I still feel the call to be the entire being, gay and all, I was called to be. There is no disorder. No struggle. No need to be anything other than who I am. Perhaps it is because I have been blessed by the fact I can claim I have been in God’s presence. He even spoke to me. However, I was unable to see his face. I tried but he would not allow me to look upon him. Unfortunately, I have no proof of this only what I experienced. And each time I look back on that experience I believe he has a purpose for me. And that unique experience is what has kept me going. I have fallen away for periods I cannot count. This past year has been a real change for me since I have had and felt a born-again experience. So through it all I no longer worry what other Christians think of me being gay because it is irrelevant. They have their own journey which they must take themselves. And I have mine.
What I have noticed as a trend in Christian practice is the condemnation I and others receive within the GLBT by those like you Peter who claim to be practising orthodox biblical principles but in the same breath accept and affirm positions that run contrary to Scripture. This is something I cannot and will never understand. Even the most orthodox and traditional believer does not cling to every position Jesus spoke out against. Why must some issues be accepted as “Truth” (gay love being a sin) while others are no longer viewed as sin or are now viewed as an unfortunate reality in this age? (divorce and remarriage)
I don’t quite get the distinction that allows Peter to attend the civil partnership of a non-Christian friend while staying away if the friend is a Christian. I’ve experienced the same kind of shunning from friends who were very loving and supportive when I was struggling with my sexuality, often ‘slipping’, and occasionally suicidal, but who have deliberately cut off contact now that I’m happy in a committed, monogomous partnership. Like Peter, they would say it’s a ‘theological issue.’ I guess I believe in a more practical theology – or at least one that can celebrate the happiness of any friend, whether Christian or otherwise.
Peter O says that he would not attend the Civil Partnership ceremony of a Christian couple, but would attend the same ceremony of a non-Christian couple.
But what if the question was turned on it’s head. I personally would have qualms about attending the wedding of someone who delcares themselves ex-gay or post-gay, and are planning to marry someone of the opposite sex despite the ex-gay’s ongoing attraction to the same sex.
I am rather amused by Peter O’s assertion that he could attend the commitment ceremony of non-Christians, but not of Christians. So he respects the choice to reject Christianity completely, but he cannot extend the same respect to fellow believers who prayerfully and sincerely reach different conclusions on how to apply Christianity to a particular human situation.
Peter stands in a long tradition of Christians showing their greatest intolerance toward other believers who hold different theological opinions.
Ken R,
I would humbly suggest that your understanding of God’s revelation to us on how to live our lives is wrong. You would say the same to me. As for picking and choosing, well, you obviously haven’t asked me what *I* think about divorce and remarriage. You might be surprised (and have to go away and read Hillel and Gamalliel as well).
Rick – I’ve never cut-off contact with people who have chosen to enter a gay relationship. I’ve simply said that if they knew Jesus I couldn’t support such a blessing / commitment ceremony. Most of my friends have respected my conscience on that (and I theirs).
John – For me, once I was married it didn’t really matter whether I looked at a man and listed him or another woman (apart from my wife). Both would be out of bounds so the issue at that point of my sexual preference for one or the other doesn’t really come into it. Once I was married I became not homosexual or heterosexual but wifesexual.
NickC – You mistake tolerance and condoning something. It is perfectly possible to tolerate something without condoning it.
Peter said:
Only as evidenced by your civil union comment, you don’t actually allow them to accept a path that may end in having no issues between themselves and God concerning their orientation. Instead you insist on imposing your own idea of what the journey must consist of. You are free to deal with that issue in your own life as you believe He is leading, however don’t be surprised if others pick up on the hypocrisy present in your dealings with others.
Neither do I think anyone is going to give you a pat on the back for not lying to them about the possibility of “change.” I’m glad for their sakes that you don’t, but it seems like a low bar to set.
I find that statement absurd, and as advice downright dangerous. I wonder how Pam would comment on that?
David R,
How is that (not going to Christian friends’ Civil Partnership) intolerance different from your intolerance displayed by criticising me for not going to the Civil Partnership? In other words, if you are the tolerant one, why are you intolerantly criticising me for having a moral opinion on this?
Peter:
I did once have a discussion with an American pastor that would not even say my name, in fear that speaking my name out loud would be taken as him condoning transsexualism. By the way, that same pastor welcomed a woman and her third husband into church membership, and called her “Mrs. //third husband last name//”. He refused to even talk to me about the matter.
I and my spouse invited another American pastor to my home for dinner. He declined. Twice later, he pressed me hard on telephone to give him a personal gift of $50,000 by selling him property below market. I’ve wondered if he believed that accepting dinner was an official pastoral act, while accepting cash profit was a private action.
I’ve heard of pastors that will not visit prisons, drug dealers, or even pool halls for fear of being perceived as condoning crime; and of pastors that will not speak to smokers (while they smoke) for fear of being perceived as condoning cigarette smoking. I’ve heard of pastors that will not perform a second-marriage ceremony for heterosexual couples, but will allow the remarried couple to attend their church or become members.
To this day, I wonder about such reasoning. After all, Jesus had no problem with speaking the name of Zacchaeus the corrupt tax collector, attending dinners given for Him by many unsavory people, or blessing a Roman centurion by healing the Roman’s servant. Jesus lived the scripture to ‘bless those that curse you’. And Jesus is the example we are to pattern our life after. At least, that’s what I thought.
I’ve learned since that there is school of thought among pastors that they are indeed “Ambassadors of Christ”, but that their own conscience dictates their official actions, and that the policies of Christ do not dictate their official actions. In short, this school of thought allows a pastor to say, “I was invited to dinner by a //gay couple, wife of a prisoner, tax collector, etc.//, and I declined. I realize that Jesus would have accepted the invitation and dined with them, but I am following my conscience even in official actions.”
For the sake of continuing dialog; and for the sake of improving my understanding; could you comment on any of the above? Sincerely; Caryn
I don’t find where I claimed my own tolerance or your intolerance. You can have any opinion you like, but it would seem hypocritical to say on the one hand that the person who comes to you must “die to self” and “give all things over to God” only to stipulate your own path as a boundary for how God must deal with that person after having done so.
One of the best nights of my life was getting blindingly drunk on far too much good red wine with a (gay) ex flat mate and his partner out on the town. I think we went to Wagamamas for food and then moved on, picking up a TV celeb friend of the partner (who was camp as a row of marquees and very intelligently funny). Much fun had by all.
Does that answer your question?
Tolerance means “I disagree with your life-style choices and that might make me occasionally say I can’t do things with you”. It doesn’t mean “I will acquiesce all my personal beliefs and never say that you’re wrong”.
I don’t think it’s intolerant. I genuinely believe that the Biblical picture of sexuality prohibits such a choice (a gay relationship) as part of the “dying to self”. That’s exactly the kind of thing that dying to self means – dying to sinful desires AND the demanding of things from God.
Would you expect me to accept without criticism any lifestyle choice made by someone who came to me and claimed “This is what God is telling me I should do”? Bestiality? Polygamy? Adultery? Incest? Paedophilia?
Peter, with whom are you conversing? Let me just restate what I said before:
Again, I said nothing about your tolerance or lack thereof — that is all your stuff. That you are willing to get drunk with somebody who is gay or that you enjoy a campy guy is irrelevant, particularly when you use it as a trophy.
Well, haven’t we all ended up here at some point or another? It’s sad, but this is the end point of so many such conversations — it’s quite predictable and it’s old.
You are entitled to any opinion you wish, but please don’t expect a pat on the back for being less overtly dishonest about the issue than the next guy. If you want to mold people in your own image, don’t claim it as God’s.
Peter O,
I’ve simply said that if they knew Jesus I couldn’t support such a blessing / commitment ceremony.
Let me warn you that what follows is harsh: From this statement, I would question whether you know Jesus yourself.
That seems extreme – and it is. I don’t question your sincerity. I don’t question your devotion to your faith. I don’t question whether you seek to live your life in accordance with what you think God the Father wants you to live, as laid out in the Law and Prophets.
But I do question whether you know the person Jesus.
The reason I do is because what you are saying seems to run in direct contradiction to the teachings of that person. And it seems to me that if you really knew Him you would not say such things.
Above all other law, above all other commandments, there are two commandments upon which ALL OTHER commandments hang: love God, love your neighbor as yourself.
And though many talk about “tough love” or “love the sinner, hate the sin”, if you knew Jesus then surely you would know what he demonstrated as love. It was physical observable non-abstract love that looked nothing like “hate the sin” or “tough love” or any of the other excuses given for unkindness. And His love didn’t much care what sort of message it was giving or what it looked like it was condoning or what others might think about it. It was treatment-based love, not words-based love.
Now perhaps you might argue that Jesus was willing to hang out with sinners but not the theologically-incorrect. But who were these “sinners”? They were the chosen of God, not the pagans. They were those Jews that didn’t live the way the “good church folk” thought they should, not those who were enemies of Judaism. In other words, they were the part of the flock that others thought were sinners.
There isn’t the slightest doubt in my mind that Jesus would be at the civil union of whatever friends invited him, be they non-believer or theologically divergent.
And because you don’t know this, it makes me wonder if you know Jesus all that well. Or at all.
Tim K,
Give me a single example of a sinner that Jesus chose to hang out with who didn’t then reform, or receive a call to reform, his/her immoral behaviour?
I think perhaps you don’t know Jesus that well.
Dave R – What gives you the right to call me intolerant and then criticise me when I call you intolerant? That’s hardly fair. You’re coming across, rightly or wrongly, as someone who is saying “I want you to accept my choice of behaviour, regardless of your ethics, and if you don’t I will brand you intolerant”.
I think Nick’s point isn’t to make Peter agree with him. Nick is just asking Peter to honor the fact that he has put as much time and effort and prayer and thought into his life choices as Peter has, but has come to a different conclusion. In other words, Nick wishes Peter to extend the “priesthood of the believer” toward Nick as much as Nick extends it toward Peter. That’s all.
Christians have disagreed over points of theology constantly over the years. Before homosexuality became the big boogeyman of recent years, the big disagreement was between traditional and Pentecostal worship practices. Are the gifts of the Holy Spirit meant to be used by believers today, or were they only to serve a purpose when the apostles were alive? There are still some Christians today who believe that anyone who speaks in tongues publicly during a worship service is at best deluded, and at worst, controlled by demonic forces.
So, for those who think that Pentecostal expression is in error, it doesn’t matter whether the Pentecostal individual has researched the Greek texts thoroughly, examined the context of the passages, prayed over the subject extensively, or even had a personal, supernatural experience with God. The non-Pentecostal has already made up their mind about the subject, and cannot conceive of the fact that the other person could possibly be right.
And that’s the central issue here. Nick is not asking Peter to abandon his convictions; he is asking him to extend grace. Either one of you could be completely wrong on this issue, and there are compelling theological arguments to be made in both directions. If the situation were reversed, and Peter was the one getting married, I doubt Nick would decline to attend, even if he personally felt that Peter was making a badly-reasoned decision. However, Peter has clearly stated he would not do the same in Nick’s case.
Which means that it is more important for Peter to appear morally superior than it is to extend love and grace to another fallen human being. And that misses the heart of the Gospel.
Peter O,
Evidently you think love is conditional. It is only to be offered when accompanied by rebuke. You seem to think Jesus only hung around with sinners when he was rebuking them.
Yet I don’t see that in Scripture. For the most part it’s silent on what Jesus said or did – providing only information that his accusers disapproved of his eating with sinners. Jesus told them that he was sent for the lost – but he didn’t tell the Pharisees, “I only go there to rebuke them” and Scripture doesn’t, in fact, tell us that he DID rebuke them or, as you phrase it, “receive a call to reform, his/her immoral behaviour”.
Now I expect you will drag out the Woman at the Well – the sole example of Jesus saying, “go and sin no more”. But when you do, please remember that this Scripture has the least credibility of all the Bible – with many scholars doubting that it was in the original text.
Your seeing Jesus of the condemner of his dinner partners leaves me further pursuaded that you don’t really know Him.
To compare something benign with something destructive or malicious in order to show that it is “bad” only shows that your standard of sin is whatever you want it to be. It’s called moral relativism. Your beliefs about the sinfulness of gay relationships may coincide with the Bible, but they aren’t based on it.
If your beliefs were BASED on the Bible, your comparisons would have reflected that. The “sinfulness” of gay relationships would be compared with the “sinfulness” of something like masturbation, or long hair, or eating shellfish, or not working on Sunday, etc.
You can’t very well make the case that human intimacy with a member of the same gender is sinful until you can first show that it is harmful, or that there is no correlation between sin itself and harm. As it stands, by your standard, the color green could be sinful.
Peter, again please, who are you talking with? You seem to be responding to accusations that don’t exist. I know I didn’t make them, and I don’t see where Dave Rattigan did. Please clarify what you are responding to before you continue. Thank you.
David, you’re wasting your time.
Those are faith-based accusations he’s observing. It doesn’t matter if anyone ever actually accused him of being intolerant, all that matters is that he believes that they did.
If you “die to self” then it doesn’t matter what the ears hear or the eyes see, they are part of self. But dying to self allows you to claim anything you want.
If your faith requires that you believe that all gay people accuse you of intolerance, then you will believe it. Facts are immaterial.
Are you saying that there is ONLY one way of understanding God? That the Orthodox Church has it all figured out? Jewish leaders of Jesus’ time believed they had it all figured out. Jesus proved them wrong. Their traditions made void the commands of God.
While I do believe that there is only one way to salvation which is through our Lord Jesus Christ , there are many paths to Christ. Each one unique for the individual. To say there is only one way to know him is simply saying that God would never reveal himself by any other means other than through the church’s understanding of Scripture and through the traditions practiced by the church and its clergy.
Strange tho. The Virgin Mary appeared to the poorest children. To the most in need of charity. Not to Catholic clergy to reveal messages from God to the world.
Actually, Peter O could come to my big ol’ gay wedding. I’ve given up on Christianity, so I’m now in that non-believer category he can apparently condone as well as tolerate.
I would suggest that tolerance must be judged not only by the attitude I myself think I present toward others, but also by what others tell me of how my attitude, words, and actions actually affect them. Peter has simply made up his own mind that he is tolerant, and wants us all to accept his tolerance on his say so. After all, he did get drunk with a gay guy once. Then he blithely goes on comparing us to alcoholics and telling us we’ve just surrendered to our lusts.
It’s not all that different from the way he has made up his mind that he no longer has a homosexual orientation even though he still has sexual attractions toward men.
I guess Peter is like the Bush administration: Reality is what I declare it to be!
My only real question at this point is WHY Peter is so intent on convincing us of his tolerance. His actual statements–as so many of us here have pointed out–show that he has no real respect for our decisions and life choices. So why is it so important for him to convince us otherwise?
Peter:
1.) You wrote, “Give me a single example of a sinner that Jesus chose to hang out with who didn’t then reform, or receive a call to reform, his/her immoral behaviour?”
I’m a bit lost on this point. The New Testament is filled with the teachings of Jesus, which do include instruction, dialog, rebuke, and/or insight. We are all sinners, so all the pages amaze us and challenge our wisdom, knowledge, understanding, and behaviors. The call to reform our understanding is almost on every page. The call to reform our behavior does occur in several places, as well. But there is no one-to-one correspondence, as you imply.
In John chapter 3, Jesus instructs Nicodemus, but there is no obvious immoral behavior on the part of Nicodemus. In John chapter 4, Jesus instructs the Samaritan woman, and there is obvious immoral behavior of divorce and co-habitation – yet Jesus instructs her on worship. In John chapter 5, Jesus gives no instruction but does heal the man at the pool of Bethesda, and then calls him to reform some unnamed immoral behavior. Later in John 5, Jesus observes the obviously immoral behavior of the desire to murder, and yet overlooks desire to murder and instructs on believing in Him as the Messiah.
Again, Peter, there is no one-to-one correspondence for the thesis you propose.
- Based on John 3, you should be willing to share your insights with us; based on John 4, you should be willing to overlook homosexuality and teach proper worship to us; based on John 5, you should be willing to heal us and ask us to refrain from immoral behavior; based also on John 5, you should be willing to overlook sins greater than homosexuality and instruct us on how to strengthen our faith in Jesus as the Messiah.
Please do re-examine your thesis, and do please continue to dialog. Unless there is dialog, there will never be understanding of the underlying belief systems, definitions, logic, and evidences. We need to work through the frustration of trying to communicate with each other, for I truly think that without dialog we shall not have reconciliation.
For the sake of dialog, then:
I am very curious how you would treat the verse, “”Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.” [Acts 10:15] when you aligned us with “Bestiality? Polygamy? Adultery? Incest? Paedophilia?” I offer that such implications are contrary to the instructions of our Lord to Peter, and will not help with the dialog we need to establish and maintain.
And also how you would treat the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15? “Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the Law of Moses.” “ [verse 5] We that are GLBT are not unique to the challenge facing the historical church. Can you, for the sake of dialog, draw a parallel of reasoning based on Acts 15?
Can you also, for the sake of dialog, explain how the letter of the Jerusalem Council was later changed/not changed by the writings of Paul the Apostle in Romans 14?
Sincerely; Caryn
Just a thought to several of the Christian writers here… I think that you are way ahead of many that visit this site in reasoning, experience, and in maturity.
Please do consider that you are ‘strong’ and the visitors that write are ‘weak’. They visit here, and write a few sentences. We chat kindly back. They grow more bold and write more. We overcome the initial arguments. They are in shock, and struggle for words… their next set of statements may indeed be clumsy… and even with insults laced within. And we reply in kind with yet stronger words. And then, we lose the dialog.
I do not like being compared to an abuser of children or someone that sexually uses animals… I do not like the strong hint that I am addicted like an alcoholic… but I offer that those who are strong need to ‘turn the other cheek’ and ignore the insult, and continue the teaching of our Jesus that you believe is most beneficial. At most, we can point out that some comments implied an insult, and then reply with words laced with love that is “patient… kind… not rude… not self-seeking…not easily angered… but rejoicing with the truth” [I Cor 13]
Why? I believe that most blogs have far more readers than writers. And the audience of readers needs to see the clear teachings of our Lord Jesus. With your words, you are perhaps persuading far more than just one visiting writer. Most sincerely; Caryn
Peter O, may jump in here? I am a heterosexual black woman and always have been. My experience with anecdotal racism, paled in comparison to experiences two light skinned aunts of mine had.
They lived in a ‘two world’ situation. They knew they were black, although looked white, and they knew what damage the institution of Jim Crow laws did to black lives.
Blacks then and even now, have to live down the ‘child/adult abuser’ relationships in that legal system.
Meaning, their status, the expectations of the white racist majority and that of the laws didn’t allow for, or for blacks to live fully as adults.
They weren’t even addressed formally by their surnames. And even elderly blacks were described as if or addressed with ‘boy’ or ‘girl’.
And blacks aren’t considered to have mature, reliable or moral sexuality. And given popular culture that exacerbates this image, the stereotype won’t go away soon.
It in THIS that gay citizens have the most in common with blacks. This treatment is couched in religious teaching, but it isn’t NOT justified. No matter how gently or compassionately the intentions to change homosexuals are stated, the goal is that gay people disappear or otherwise are treated like children.
That gays and lesbians KNOW what they are from early childhood isn’t acknowledged by the ex gay industry, except in the negative and a behavior for intense intervention.
It does not occur that the basic response is in itself emotional and mental abuse of gay children.
Similar to the inculcation of inferiority and immorality black children were subject to in racist institutions.
My aunts, ‘changed’, themselves into white people by affecting the speech and dress and hairstyles of white women. And the things said in their presence was as hurtful, damaging and dangerous as it gets. For my aunts to be outed, would have meant for them the same issues for gays now. Destruction of careers, social networks, if not outright assault.
My point is, my aunts were not wrong to walk on the white side, or desire to.
What was wrong was for white people to insist that blacks were not their equals, nor had ANY capability to do anything of merit for society.
It’s understandable why someone gay would want to be heterosexual. The pressure is enormous to do so.
I am, however and always have been a heterosexual. I have at times, hated being black. Or resented the treatment I’ve received from boorish, if not threatening men. And often some people have altered their gender or color to see what it was like to live free and study those who are in power over the lives of minorities.
The fact remains that what you are now, is without identity but that dictated to you on terms from who controls it.
It happens to other people. In other ways, but it’s not good and and unless people are faith are as willing to accept what gay people REALLY are, and are willing to help and support gay youngsters in achieving their full status as adults, I cannot see that such pressure to be straight is for compassionate reasons.
If you think you are living in Christ, cool. But you died as a gay person. And that empowers other gay youngsters to die too.
Whether figuratively, literally, religiously, or symbolically…the point is….that they die.
And do it before anyone really knows who they are, what they wanted to do, or what they hope for. Honesty and education die with them. And the world has a right to know who gay people really are. Everyone is entitled to that knowlege and it’s wrong to keep it from them.
That is diabolical to me.
And being heterosexual isn’t all it’s cracked up to be by the ex gay industry. And making it sound like the ultimate of life as a human being is ridiculous.
We are all unique and individual and should realize our full potential, whatever it is.
And the gender stereotyping and myth and misinforming that the ex gay industry does is a illegitimate and damaging as the white supremacist institutions of my and my parent’s and grandparent’s childhoods.
And full recovery from that outrage may never come.
How can YOU or Alan Chambers or the rest not see the repeats of the past, and STILL feel so certain you’re doing the right thing?
No one could be doing right by God, when the opportunities to know gay people better still occurs again and again, and the symbiosis of gay and straight in the world together is thus far, INDESTRUCTABLE?
Segue warning…
And blacks aren’t considered to have mature, reliable or moral sexuality. And given popular culture that exacerbates this image, the stereotype won’t go away soon.
You gave me something to think about here… The pimp/ho image perpetuated by current culture is always something that has bothered me. And I have been guilty in the past of thinking it was a “black problem” that should be addressed in the black community.
But I do realize that this imagery is not solely under black control. It is evident and everywhere for one reason: because it sells. And I wonder if those same white people who buy this image of black people as sexually irresponsible would be so quick with their dollars if it were white people imaged thusly. Somehow I doubt it. I don’t see white entertainers projected as illiterate, oversexed, or pimp and ho nearly as much.
And if white dollars didn’t support this imagery, would not there be a place for black entertainers that appeared responsible and intelligent – at least as much as any other entertainers (paris, britney, and lindsey notwithstanding)?
Is this prevailing imagery really any different than Amos and Andy?
OK – rant over. Returning now to the topic at hand.
I think perhaps you don’t know Jesus that well.
Don’t feel bad Timothy, none of us do.
I understand he’s been dead a very long time. We rely on what others have said, and on what has been allowed to be published and not suppressed since that time.
(Unless, of course, Peter O has actually met Jesus in the flesh; so to speak.)
By the way, the war in Iraq is going really well. George said so. See how that works?
Speaking of wars, a kindly centurion told me Jesus said he’d “never seen such faith” after he asked Jesus to heal his urgh, umm, “friend” who was feeling a bit poorly.
“Friend”.
Nudge, nudge, wink, wink. Say no more.
I also remember some story about a “good” Samaritan.
Can’t have been that good, though — he was one of them awful Samaritans, after all.
Splitters!
(and that, dear, will do with the Monty Python. It’s boring. Drop it.)
Peter O. has gone to Oxford and studied a lot. He is very smart and made some very specific decisions. He is unique in many ways and probably feels that way. I have met the Peter O.’s of the world. England’s education system and culture seems to produce them more than the US, but the English have always admired or at least tolerated eccentrics in ways that Americans actually do not. The English countryside in particular likes them.
Given all that, nonetheless, I find the Peter O.’s of the world impossible to have discussions with unless one has infinite time and patience. And even then, failing a internally driven personal change on his part, such discussions never lead to change of opinions on their part. As to you, well, either you must buy his whole self-developed world view or you too are left thinking, “what was that all about” . See, they are very self directed, have thought about things, they have answers which they have, over time, developed themselves. A conversation with “outsiders” (anyone who is not them) is pointless. This is what extreme eccentricity is all about.
I feel sorry for Peter in some way, he is locked in by now, happy enough I suppose, living out the role he has chosen as curate of an evangelical C of E parish, oddly introducing Sacred Heart of Jesus devotions to it, entirely out of touch with our times and probably never again able to have real human contact with gay people, I mean, you know as post gay and all that.
It really comes down to this one point: is God true or is He a liar? Is the bible, the word of God, a work of fiction or is it The whole truth and nothing but. The bible states that The Lords position on homosexuality is against, along with many other activities that we the people, created by God, get ourselves involved in and must be wise enough to reject. Against God is the way of death. But, God is a deliverer, a redeemer and can change our minds. We can be transformed to think the way we should if we embrace the truth and turn from our own sinful way. We have the mind of Christ those who believe anyway. I submit that God is True and every man, who is contrary to Him, a liar. He created and controls the world we live in. What God says is LAW. We have been given a free will choice to serve Him by doing what is right in His sight, not our own, and to abide in this life in love and peace. There are many path ways to death and hell, but to life and God is a straight and narrow path. Only right is right. God is right.
T.H. How’s ’bout we meet at the Red Lobster for some shrimp and discuss this. Oh, that’s right, if you are going to follow all laws of Leviticus, then we can’t meet at Red Lobster. And I am damned before we even go to the gay thing, I have had tattoos before I ever had gay sex. (Sorry, TMI!) So according to Leviticus, I was already and abomination. We cherry pick Leviticus, what makes your picks any more authorative than mine?
T.H.
The question that many have is not whether God is true or a liar. The question is whether some men’s understanding of God, as taught in some conservative evangelical churches, is accurate.
I understand that some people feel the need to accept their church’s teaching lest they begin to doubt. And I understand that some are not capable of studying scripture or delving into theology, philosophy, or history and as such cannot apply context to Scripture. And I understand some just need to view those who find differing interpretaition to be “liars” or “enemies of God” and to see themselves as culture warriors.
I recognize such limitations. And I do try to show sympathy and not simply dismiss them as ignorant, uneducated, or childish in thought.
But please do also realize that many people who disagree with your recitation of your pastor’s sermons do not do so out of ill will. And they are not in opposition to God. They simply have found through study, thought, observation, or perhaps divine revelation that narrow interpretations (requiring wild assumptions about meanings) do not adequately explain the message of Christ.
T.H., I see what you’re doing as sort of a tactic, one that I’ve seen used by other people. You take your understanding of the bible and you codify it as self-evident truth. What the bible reads, and what the bible means or says, is one and the same to you. After that there’s really no room for, or need for, debating over interpretation.
With that established, there’s really no such thing in your eyes as a person who reconciles their homosexuality with their Christian faith because they think that homosexuality isn’t condemned, instead all that exists are people who either believe in God’s word, or don’t; God is either “the truth, or a liar.”
In other words, you’re conveniently leaving out the entire issue of interpretation so that you can reduce the issue to a very neat little black and white dichotomy, but I don’t buy it one bit, and I think that your point is not at all what it “all comes down to.”
I’m a self-affirmed Gay Christian and, and that doesn’t mean that I think God is a liar, or that “all of the bible is false,” it means that I don’t agree with you on the meaning of the scripture in question.
T.H. Thank you for posting. Just like you, I do believe that the Bible is the Word of God. However, I think Jesus taught a hierarchy of scriptural truths.
For example, in Matthew chapter 12, Jesus’ disciples sinned by harvesting on the Sabbath day. And so, Jesus rebuked them bluntly… uh… wait… He did not. Something very amazing is shown in Matthew chapter 12. Is it possible that there is a truth (or principle) that is superior to (or dominant over) a life of sacrifice?
Please do answer. Just thinking over that one example caused me to change many of my own views towards others. Most sincerely; Caryn
To all the gay “christians” here – your exegesis of the bible is tortured. Just admit it. The bible is not only homophobic, but also blatantly un-scientific, exceedingly patriarchal, and pro-slavery. Trying to massage the bible to say what it clearly does not say is dishonest. Both the bible and tradition speak in unison about this issue. Just admit that the bible is wrong and move on.
However, I have no problem with people who still retain the bible only as a piece of literature from an unenlightened era, one where they draw personal inspiration from (even a Neo-Orthodox position is credible) or appreciate its literary beauty; there is nothing wrong with treating it like a Walt Whitman poem. What I take issue with is this understanding that you have to legitimize your existence and behaviour by making the bible agree with you. You don’t need biblical “approval” for what you do. Only fundamentalists think like that; they just haven’t realized that they too are modernizing the bible (where in the bible does it ask you to ‘ask jesus into your heart’?). The issue of biblical “authority” is an issue that is no longer valid and shouldn’t be debated. We don’t live our lives according to its every dictates because it is an outmoded, and dare I say demonstratively erroneous, book. I don’t see what is wrong with stating that the bible is not the foundation of your faith – as if it was handed down from god himself.
Like I have beens saying, when the LGBT community tries to argue with the ex-gay and right wing movement(s) based on scriptural interpretations, we will always fail. No amount of special pleading or pulling out novel interpretations of texts that clearly are anti-gay will convince anyone that the bible can be even remotely interpreted to support a gay identity. Sorry, it just can’t. If you want to admit that you are handling the bible in a new, more modern, way – just admit it. Don’t be so afraid to completely dismiss the bible.
Peter: “When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.” Even if this was only the saying of a wise man, it prods me. Even if this was only poetry, it stops me. It speaks of immature and mature views of reasoning, and as my Lord Jesus knows, I have been guilty of the former quite often, and so negligent of the latter.
I hope I have been gentle in my debate, and not rude. If I failed you, I then honestly apologize. But those that are young in Christ, often rightfully debate “what is evil?” or “what is good?” I think this is good for a time.
I offer that those that are mature in Christ then ponder, “What is mercy? What is faithfulness? What is social justice? What is impartiality? Why the command to reconcile with each other? What is reconciliation? What does it mean to love your enemy? What does it mean to resign your case in court? What does it mean to ‘not judge those that are outside the faith’? What was the sin of Edom? What was the principle that allowed Jesus to defend His disciples ‘harvesting’ on the Sabbath?” [Matthew 23; Matthew 5; I Corinthians 5; Obadiah 1:10-15; Matthew 12].
I forbade my child at the age of 4 to ‘cross the street’ for it was ‘bad’. It was a good rule at that time. He is now 30 years old. How sad, if a neighbor collapses in his full view, and my son says, “I could not help him, for I wanted to avoid being ‘bad’.” I hope my son has matured in his understanding.
I shan’t abandon the Bible at all. I hope instead, that many of us will continue to dialog, to understand the more mature arguments, and to help each other move into the full maturity of Christ.
In my opinion, there are people collapsing in full view on both sides of the Biblical debate, and yet I hope many of us cross the street and strengthen them all — even our ‘enemies’. Most sincerely; Caryn
Peter, is there some constructive value in using scare quotes to refer to all of the gay “Christians?”
Be careful not to confuse seeking approval with refuting purported condemnation. I’ve never once felt the need to find approval of my sexuality from my faith, but that doesn’t mean I won’t say that I disagree when someone tells me that my faith explicitly condemns it.
Okay, I may have been a little aggressive in that last post. Please understand that it is borne out of a sense of frustration, not animosity. I just don’t see the point arguing with people who can’t see beyond their red-letter edition KJV.
I qualified the word christian to highlight the way in which the vast majority of “bible-believing” christians see you – as something questionable and your faith suspect. Read some of the responses on this site and on others; posts such as T.H.’s above are a good example. They really don’t think that LGBT people can be true christians because we violate “God’s word”.
Please don’t misunderstand me here. You can believe whatever you want. If your faith/belief is fulfilling and satisfying to you, believe all you want! I left my faith behind while attending bible school; at least I come by my atheism honestly! It wasn’t because I finally accepted my sexuality, but because I found that the bible didn’t make any sense to me living in the present (Bultmann was especially helpful). I think what I want is for people to recognize that the bible is a foreign book, whose content is largely alien to most peoples’ lives today. We can’t keep viewing it as “God’s word”, because the god of the bible doesn’t make sense today either. As such, we must approach it in a different and new way. I see attempts at “refuting purported condemnations” as a way of maintaining that old way of thinking, one that requires an external authority like the bible. Instead of saying from the beginning that the bible is outmoded, we try to harmonize it with our current understanding (I guess that is what I was trying to say). I think that we try to re-interpret the text to make it more congruent with today because most people still feel that they need to hold onto it. Why do we need the bible at all?
If you went to Bible School I’m sure you understand the answer to that one. I suspect you ask the question to emphasize again your own position, i.e. lack of faith in God. You are entitled to that but, as you recognize, others are entitled to their own beliefs as well.
I haven’t the slightest doubt that God exists, and I don’t believe as I do about passages of scripture because the need to adjust has been imposed on me. I read the Bible for what it is to me, the Word of God. I want to know more about Him and scripture is an important part of that.
If I truly believed that God did not want me living as I do, I would adapt my behavior, not my interpretation of scripture. In fact I have done so many times as I have grown and I have no regrets about that. These are my priorities in life, because I love Him.
You’ve spoken forcefully on this a couple of times now and I think we know your personal position. Let’s try to avoid attacking the beliefs of others in the future. I’m sure you can find a way to contribute to the debate without that.
Benton, You’re bent on religion, and you’re missing the point. The question is Right and wrong. What is right? What is wrong? Who determines which is which? Man? NO! Opinion as we all know is not neccesarily the truth. The answer is simple God is right, He judges all things and He has determined what is right and what is wrong. He is the creator of all things. Therefore we as the created must adhere to His truth about reality. Gods’ Word is truth and we must live by every word even if it doesn’t make sense to our finite minds. Any other ” reality” is no reality, it is deception. Deception leads to err, err leads to destruction. God wants to save you from destruction. Homosexuality is a cleverly devised deception perpetrated on mankind by satan. Man thinks he’s a woman, woman thinks she’s a man? deception plain and simple.
Timothy Kincaid, It really is about whether God is True or a liar. It is not about what the consensus of the church is, nor is it about the opinion of the pastor. The bible states clearly that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that homosexuality is not of God. The Holy Bible says that. The Word Of God. If you don’t believe what the bible says just be honest with yourself and admit that and let the ” you’re not interpeting it right” spin rest. Is it right to be honest? God says yes.
No, T.H., the Bible does not say that marriage is between one man and one woman. I honestly wish the Bible were that clear about such matters, but it is not. Unfortunately, various sections of the Bible promote polygamy. This affirmation of polygamy was gradually reversed by Catholic and Protestant philosophers (and, I assume, Jewish rabbis and philosophers) centuries after the various books that comprise scripture were written. Some conservative-led, antigay African churches permit polygamy to this day.
Furthermore, throughout much of scripture, marriage is assumed to be a familial, financial and contractual affair — not a romantic one — that is pre-arranged by relatives.
The nuclear family as we understand it today — a unit distinct from the extended family — did not emerge until the medieval period, and arranged marriages persisted among Jews and Christians until (approximately) the industrial revolution. Arranged marriages persist today among some highly traditional cultures.
I am told it is contrary to New Testament teaching to add or subtract from the Bible, and so I hope you will repent of your own sin in this regard. Going forward, T.H., please cite chapter and verse — and please do not butcher verses to suit your biases.
Timothy Kincaid, It really is about whether God is True or a liar. It is not about what the consensus of the church is, nor is it about the opinion of the pastor. The bible states clearly that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that homosexuality is not of God.
T.H.,
This may come as a startling surprise, but you don’t speak for God.
All you are able to say is that you speak what YOU believe ABOUT God. But God and His nature and His wisdom were not divinely revealed to you. In fact, all you have to go on are the English translations of the writings of devout people several thousand years ago in a different culture and with different understanding of the world around them.
Personally, I believe that only the most arrogant and self-righteous of people would assume that their understanding of Scripture is absolute and correct and that all others are flawed.
I am not saying that God is not right. I’m saying that you are not right.
Let me go right out on a limb here and make some guesses about you, T.H. I’m willing to guess that:
1. You do not read ancient Greek
2. You do not read ancient Hebrew
3. You do not read Aramaic
4. You have not studied any of the cultures surrounding the Biblical writers
5. You have not personally studied the scriptures that you are relying on for your condemnation of others
6. You have never made any effort to weigh the context of the scriptures (i.e. against the rest of the text from which you lift them) or the cultural understanding of those to whom the scriptures were written
7. You haven’t even been to seminary
8. You are relying solely on others for your interpretations
9. Your self-righteousness still allows you to think that your opinions based on ignorance are correct and they trump all others who have actually done all of the above.
But I’m just guessing. Feel free to correct me.
The bible states clearly that marriage is between a man and a woman
I think it’s time to bring back something I wrote some time ago:
You know T.H. you and others are in error claiming that the Bible IS the Word of God when the bible itself does not make such a claim. The bible is only the inspired word. John 1 states clearly that Jesus IS THE WORD OF GOD made flesh. Jesus is the only one that can claim such a title as the Word of God. But those that thrust their bibles upon the heads of those they disagree with are always forgetting that. Sad.
Remember Jesus Christ is THE Church’s one foundation. The bible is the source that tells us about Jesus. However, the bible itself is not the foundation of the Church. Remember it is Jesus that saves.
I just love fundamentalism. They always know exactly what God thinks and says.
Only?
Inspired in this instance means “God breathed” IIRC, that sounds pretty important. I’ve heard you say this before, and I’m never sure what your point is exactly. How do you propose one find out about God if not from His inspired Word? And what priority would you place on that?
David,
The distinction is that the Bible is not divine. The Holy Spirit, however, is a part of the godhead and it’s guidance IS divine.
This isn’t to suggest that we go with our whims or with what we think the Holy Spirit is telling us via some dream or moment of inspiration. After all, those to whom God spoke in the biblical narrative were quite reluctant to assume that it was really God speaking.
Nonetheless, adherence to “what the Bible says” generally means “what I’ve always believed the Bible says”. And every fresh revival has been based on the direction and moving of the Holy Spirit. And every fresh revival has always been opposed by those who Rely on The Bible As The Word of God.
If we become too reliant on textual authority, we replace God with an idol, a book.
Or so I believe.
Thank You Timothy for explaining it so well. But I would like to add to what Timothy was saying.
For those that claim to be “bible believing” (many not all) for the most part have shut their minds off to any new revelations that God may be trying to tell us. That is why you get those Christians that say, “science will never trump the Word of God = Bible”. For them God has already spoken and anything that science may reveal that goes against their interpretation of the bible is irrelevant and in error. One good example is the persecution of Galileo by the Catholic Church. It was the CC’s use of scripture that condemn Galileo’s findings. The same is happening today. Fundamentalists refuse to believe anything other than written Scripture to reveal God’s will. And to me that is not only dangerous but very blasphemous. This makes us lock the Almighty God into a book and I am quite sure that was not his original intention. I truly believe it is God that reveals through science the things we once held as “mysteries”. Medical breakthroughs and cures are all being guided by God himself.
David, I firmly believe that we cannot just shut ourselves off to the possiblity, no to the reality, that God is still speaking to us.