understanding this blog

Who is my audience?

My audience is everyone except those on the far right with more fundamentalist views about homosexuality. Here’s why:

Those with that position assume that same-sex attraction is strictly choice and are unwilling to change their view on this position. It’s not a choice. There is a plethora of substantial research to document this. It is also bad theology to believe this and is a Gnostic position (I will explain this in a post). When someone holds that it is a choice, this makes my entire blog irrelevant because as you’ll see, it hinges on the position of it not being a choice. Plus, someone who thinks it is a choice would think this entire discussion is pointless because they could just say one should simply stop being gay — problem solved.

As a side note, I also think it is absurd to hold to this position if one has actually critically thought through the implications of it. If being gay were a choice, almost no one would be gay because no one would want to endure the alienation and persecution that comes with being gay in our society. This comes back to basic behavioral principles — if someone has a great enough punishment, people will tend to avoid it. Being gay comes with a large intensity of punishment — just ask any gay person to tell their life story. It is not a choice that people would make.

For those who do not believe that Jesus Christ resurrected from the dead and saved us from our sins and death, you may also have difficulty understanding my position, but once you understand my worldview, I think we can have meaningful discussions.

What terms I use + how I define them:

Same-sex attracted: Attracted to one’s own gender, either slightly or strongly.

Gay: Strongly attracted to one’s own gender. Male or female. This is all I mean by gay.

Gay sexual behavior: Partaking in gay sexual acts.

I do not like the term gay lifestyle because I think it attaches stereotypes to people that are likely untrue, especially for those who identify as Christian.

I will not use the term homosexual as a way to describe people. This is because the term is offensive to many who are LGBTQ because of how it has been used as a slur against them. I also expect it not to be used in the comments, but I will not take the time to censor this.

What is my view?

From a Christian worldview, I believe gay sexual behavior is morally wrong but that being gay (having strong same-sex attractions) is not.

If I were not a Christian, I would 100% be in a gay relationship. From a secular worldview, it makes perfect sense to actualize one’s homosexuality. And at times, I wish I was not a Christian because I want to be in a gay relationship. (I do know that there are Christians who believe in a Biblical case for gay relationships, but I disagree with these conclusions).

But….

Life is not about what I want. It is about submitting my life to Christ. This is what Christ did when He died on the Cross for us —- He chose to give up His life for the redemption of the world and our salvation. So if Christ can do this with His life, then I can do this with being gay. I don’t have to have a gay relationship. And I also don’t think this will provide me with a less satisfying life. The Church should help gay people find a satisfying life without a gay relationship, but all too often I feel that the Church obstructs rather than facilitates this.

And as a disclaimer, I do not question the salvation of those Christians who affirm gay relationships or are in a gay relationship. While I disagree with them, I will believe these people are still Christians.

Why write this stuff?

Some may disagree, but I don’t think the views that I represent get adequately represented.

I get frustrated by the dialogue on both sides, and I feel that we need much more subtlety in our discussions than we currently have. I get frustrated by those with more conservative positions because their language and actions often hurt those who are gay, even those who are gay and agree with their view on traditional marriage. I believe it is tenable to hold to traditional marriage but still treat gay people in a loving, respectful, and empowering way — yet the Church has done this very poorly. I think this is because of inaccurate gay stereotypes and presumptions that linger around but also because Christian heterosexuals have largely not attempted to understand what it would mean to be gay, especially gay and Christian. If the Church is going to have credibility in defending traditional marriage, it must find a feasible and loving way to incorporate gay people into its community, and this requires a lot of subtlety, which I hope to unpack in this blog.

I also get frustrated by those Christians with more liberal positions — especially the claim that “God made gays that way, so why would He not want them to be who they are?.” This statement said alone is very, very bad theology, which I will explain in a later post, and it really frustrates me. Quite honestly, some of the worst Christian theology I’ve seen has come from those advocating for gay marriage. It would be one thing if this poor theology was consistent throughout a person’s worldview, but all too often the poor theology about homosexuality is in tandem with good theology about everything else. And I am convinced this is why conservative Christians are very suspicious and distrusting of those advocating for gay marriage and partly why the conversation becomes stuck on theological arguments about homosexuality while those who are gay are silently wasting away around us.

So I am writing this blog because I am tired of the same old theological gridlock between the conservative and liberal positions. We need to develop and articulate a sophisticated theology to understand this topic. I am also tired of the lack of intentional care and awareness that the conservative side has towards gay people, even its own gay members. I don’t know if those with a conservative position realize just how damaging this is to the Church’s reputation.

Who am I?

I am a male who is sexually attracted to other males. I have never recalled having a significant sexual attraction towards a woman.

While I would like to be publicly open, I am not choosing to reveal my identity yet. But there is a good chance that I will tell you if you contact me. What you should know is that I am a Wheaton College (IL) alumnus, which is a conservative Evangelical (but not fundamentalist) and academically rigorous institution. I was heavily involved on Wheaton’s campus, which included building relationships with Wheaton administrators. I volitionally shared my gay orientation with some key administrators and faculty and received very caring, supportive responses. Since Christian college and their stances on homosexuality have recently come in the spotlight and are under attack, I will incorporate my experiences at Wheaton in this blog. Largely, I think conservative Christian colleges are handling homosexuality wrongly, and there is good reason for them to be under pressure for this. But I also think there are some things that some of these institutions are getting right, including Wheaton.

Advertisements

41 thoughts on “understanding this blog

    • Just came across this blog (I think its awesome btw!) I’m interested in hearing some personal stories about how God is leading you through this journey. Where do you feel God is taking you? What have been some awkward moments, or success/ break through that make you proud? Also any advice is good too. I am also a male sexually attracted to other males and I always like hearing other people’s stories who are going through similar walks of life. Thanks again for starting this!

  1. Hi, I’m a Christian. I saw that your friend Pete had posted this on his Facebook page, so I thought I’d have a look. (I go to the Church where he volunteered for a year a few years ago). This is a good start, I will be interested to hear your views and thoughts on this. God bless.

  2. Thank you so much for your thought into this. Its not that Wheaton is an oppressive place necessarily, but the “subtleties” of being a gay Christian just don’t get talked about enough. Thanks for taking the initiative and having the courage to talk about it. Compassionate people like you are what make Wheaton such an awesome community of grace.

  3. I just want to say thank you. Added you to my RSS feed. It is incredibly helpful to hear the perspective of someone who has SSA, yet is a Christian and is committed to following Christ in this area, as incredibly tough as that must be. I really appreciate that you neither fall into the “gay is a choice” camp (which I don’t think you could since you know from experience how untrue that is) or the “God made me this way, I should embrace it” camp. As a Christian who tries to understand and help my friends in the same position, I find this really useful. Thanks for being willing to share your experience and perspective.

  4. Hello, I recently graduated from Wheaton and am an acquaintance of your friend Pete (he was my RA). During my time at Wheaton I volunteered with a ministry devoted to men involved in prostitution in Chicago’s LGBTQ neighborhood, Boystown. Naturally, my very simple conceptions of gender/sexuality were challenged and shaped through this. I really appreciate your openness, and your willingness to address this complexity without conceding to either end of the spectrum of extreme positions. I think a great deal of Evangelical Christians are too staunchly set in their positions because they think if they concede anything, they will be affirming every aspect of the “Homosexual Lifestyle” that is often purported as lewd and hyper-sexualized. It’s both refreshing and challenging to remember that all of us are called to take up our cross and die to ourselves, even if it takes form in our sexuality.

  5. Unfortunately one of my friends ‘liked’ this blog, so I gave it a read, and am deeply saddened & frustrated. I should let it all slide, but I thought a different opinion might be welcome. It seems, that although you have researched the ‘subtleties’ of what you can and cant do, or what homosexual feelings can amount to, at the end of the day you are preaching the idea of punishing yourself with a lack of love, human contact, passion and sexual practice that make life really pretty great, all because of a minor thing such as sexuality. Although you have reasoned this with the sacrifices made by Jesus, this still equals huge equality if straight people, through nobody’s choice, get to lead a different, more free and a less restrained life. You are basically accepting that being gay means you have been given a very different life and set of rules than if you were straight. Although this is sadly true in society, nobody should condone this, let alone excuse or share it.

    Now I may get torn apart, but I really don’t believe in God, and not just because of the illogical inequality religion seems to place on my sexuality. But I am not on an anti-religion tirade, I was just incredibly saddened that you feel you have to live a life of abstinence, or that religion will fill the void of not having a relationship. Even if the latter part is true, it simply is not fair(if heterosexual people do not have to live this way) and if it is not fair surely it means it is not morally right.

    I have no doubt I know a lot less than you about theology, but I do know that if you are using your knowledge to reason inequality, ignorance really is bliss.

    If falling in love with somebody of the same sex, and wanting to celebrate that love physically means I am sinning in the eyes of God and will spend an eternity in hell, then that is not a God I would ever want to believe in. I know he is forgiving, but I won’t ever apologise, I bloody love it.

    • Toby, I am not gay, so maybe I should not intrude, but, Catholic and Evangelical and much for the devote Christians believe physical intimacy is reserved for procreation (Catholics stance on birth control). So true believing Christians would not be having sex unless pregnancy (God willing) is a possible outcome. So, that brings us to why Marriage is an institution protected to be between and man and a woman that receives special protection, because it is the vehicle for raising children in what is ideally 1) Safe 2) balanced relationship of a man and woman and 3) a spiritually sound environment blessed by God. So the whole equity argument is not a valid card to play here.

      Now, are many marriages less than ideal? Yes! But that does not mean that marriage should be further watered down because far too many fall short of the ideal. Marriage is the church and society recognizing and trying to support the ideal Now, I know this blog was about sexuality v. sexual acts, but I think your attach is because your paradyme is scewed. Your equity view is that is men and woman sin then why is the church saying I cant, well the church never endorsed their sinning either. Sex is never undertaken for strictly pleasure, the sharing of love is not in the short sighted pleasure of the moment, but in the creation of life!

      The hedonistic argument veiled with some thumping about equality is really misguided. God extols us not to be hedonists because of the damage it does, from diseases,, to pregnancies, to broken homes, to damaged children that grow to damaged adults. We are all imperfect, we all gay or straight wrestle with the 7 deadly sins all the time and that is why we have churches and families and school and yes even government to help us deal with that. As these institution get damaged and pulled down so do we ask people, because we are imperfect and need reminding and support as we work to the ideal, to make ourselves better as God would want.

      • Not everyone is a Catholic or an Evangelical- that dismantles your premise. And just so we’re clear a huge percentage of Catholics use or have used birth control which throws the procreation argument out the window.

      • Very good point. Well then I guess my perspective has changed. If the rules are just as strict no matter what the sexuality, then thank goodness I’m not religious.

    • Thank you for your perspective and comments, Toby. I know my position seems unfair and unfulfilling to you —- like I’m largely selling myself short in life. All I can say is that I have a very fulfilling life right now without a gay relationship. This is thanks to my many caring friends but also God as well — Ive experienced Gods purpose and meaning in my life and that has meant so much more to me than I think any person could mean. And this in combination with my loving Christian friends is what has allowed me to believe that not being in a gay relationship is possible for me.

      • Well I’m happy you’re happy. I don’t have, and have never had a gay relationship – I am also happy because of great friends and family. So I am not saying what I feel from any kind of knowing place. I just couldn’t accept what you seem to have, it’s not in me, I want to experience all the things a loving relationship entails. And if the argument (Mike B) is that hedonism directly results in disease, damaged families and so forth, I’m afraid we’re entering American South territory. It is very, very much possible to choose all the fun parts of life while still holding amazing values and maintaining physical and mental health.

        I’ll take my fun thanks, and I’ll see my fellow (moral, generous, happy, life-living, non-judgemental & tolerant) hedonists in hell.

      • Hi Pinkadgendist,
        I don’t think the point was to deal with everyone. Not everyone is anyone thing. Because not everyone understands or dogmatically follows does not make the view invalid. So if not everyone believes in gay marriage and not every gay couple is interested in marriage is that an invalid stance?

        We are talking Christian ideal, gaysubtlety is talking about how he lives his faith and tries to bring greater understanding to us (and has to me) and in that vein because married Catholic couples fall short of the idea does not invalidate a religious view/ideal. The logic does not hold. I would encourage you to take a break from the agenda every now and then and evaluate. It is when we convince ourselves that we have the one and only truth and could not possibly be wrong that we get in trouble.

      • Hi Toby,
        Sorry I struck a nerve. I do not think it is American South to talk about religious ideals or to understand what Christians have as the underpinning of their faith or why that is so intimidating that God might challenge you to live your life with higher purpose and meaning. He also gives us free will and you obviously can exercise your. Those that are practicing Christians just believe that living your life by the tenants of the church will most likely create the best outcomes for ourselves AND the people around us.

      • Toby, I’m glad you have friends and family that love and support you. I hope you might stick it out with me on this blog.

  6. Thank you for this! This needs to be talked about in a way that is not reductionistic and “us” and “them,” as it is often approached from both sides, both at Wheaton and in the rest of the world. I am looking forward to learning about your experiences and perspective and reading your thoughts on how to improve this dialogue.

  7. Hi, saw this blog post being shared on Facebook, and I do have two questions, particularly at the definitions section at your blog post. I love the fact that you clearly defined out what you mean by certain terms, like the terms “gay” and “gay sexual behavior,” but I was wondering whether you include lust into your category of “same sex attraction”?

    Also, I’m sure you are aware that Wheaton was ranked by the Princeton Review that they are the least LGBT friendly school on campus for this year and has been around the top 5 for the past few years. Do you think that the ranking is considered valid? It sounded like you think that Wheaton has done some things right, but do you think it is still oppressive, or do you think that the ranking may have something to do with the college’s stance on homosexuality?

    • As a current student of Wheaton college and someone who has dealt with SSA as a student I can speak to whether the ranking is fair. Yes, Wheaton as an institution affirms that homosexual behavior is wrong. On the other hand, I have experienced an incredible amount of grace, understanding (or attempts), and compassion. The community definitley has room to grow but God really has brought people into my life, both students and faculty/staff, that have come along side me and supported me in my journey.
      (so yes our stance on homosexuality, i am convinced, has influenced our rating)

    • As a gay alum, I’ll take on the second question, and others feel free to chime in. I do not feel the Wheaton is the least LGBT-friendly school out there. Certainly, some people have had tragic experiences at Wheaton as a consequence of their sexuality, but there’s general agreement that it’s gotten better for queer students over the years (in that they might not be given ultimatums–reparative therapy or expulsion–for being gay). It could be that the Princeton Review only does those rankings among its top 400 or so schools that it reviews, and Wheaton could be the least gay-friendly among those. But seriously — another college recently kicked out a student for watching Glee…

      I came out publicly when I was at Wheaton. I did not feel like I had anything to fear from the administration, since I was living by the Community Covenant and not engaging in any sort of “homosexual behavior.” For a long time I did fear the reaction from peers in the worst ways; I even considered that I could end up being the victim of a hate crime, but I had to come out publicly to reach out to those gay students who were writing suicide notes and leaving them in the prayer chapel. Yeah, that happens; let it sink in.

      My ideas changed a lot once I came out: my friends hadn’t rejected me, administrators weren’t checking up on me even though I had come out publicly and in their presence in some cases, and there was so much personal relief that then I could focus on *something* other than hiding my sexuality. But I couldn’t have predicted those things — that my friends wouldn’t say sayonara seemed just a hope because of the culture that Wheaton still had.

      As for the ranking, I think it partly has to do with the college’s stance on same-sexuality among its students and staff. But I think a lot of it comes from how those of us who came (and possibly left) closeted at Wheaton felt about the environment. If you could’ve read those suicide notes, you’d understand just how unwelcoming the Wheaton environment can be without even realizing it.

    • I would define lust as its own category — intentionally generating sexual thoughts about someone for one’s own consumption and gratification. This means everyone —- gay, straight, or bi experiences lust.

      I agree with Benjamin about Wheaton’s ranking. My experience, at least, does not warrant a number one ranking. I almost never experienced negative responses from other students. So in an overt sense, I think Wheaton’s ranking is unfair. It is more silence and ignorant statements that were hurtful, although I believe this is changing. My biggest thing is that I had internalized hurtful messages about myself before coming to Wheaton, and it was diffficult to find safe places to process.

      Now if I had been a practicing gay, things would likely have been different and our community covenant forbids it. So if we want to define unfriendly in that terms, then Wheaton is unfriendly.

  8. Unbelievable. So good. Looking forward to more. If you would like to write a guest post on this subject, I would love to chat with you. Please feel free to contact me and we can work that out. Again, very good!
    – Joel (www.jonyshuk.weebly.com/blog)

  9. Really enjoyed reading this and am excited that people are willing and desirous to discuss this so we can better take care of each other as a community trying to love as Christ loves us.

  10. As with any GOOD dialogue I like some of what you say but not 100% everything, and agree with some of what you say, but not 100% everything either. And that’s not a BAD thing. Which I think is often where the subtly falls out of conversations on this topic.

    One thing I do think you should clarify is your definition of “traditional marriage” since you use this phrase a few times. Its very culture specific what a traditional marriage would imply, and opponents to certain of your points will be quick to point out that “just because its traditional doesn’t make it Biblical”. I think most of us assume you mean the typical(?) western marriage between 1 man and 1 woman. However, that is not necessarily the traditional/historical biblical marriage model (e.g. one man, many women?).

    Of course this opens a whole other universe of questions and dialogue, but then, that shouldn’t be a bad thing either. For example, if polygamy (eg non traditional western marriage) was acceptable to God for thousands of years (during which time is was culturally appropriate) but then became inappropriate once the practice was no longer culturally relevant (eg Augustinian Rome specifically cracking down on any form of conduct that would de-stabalize the roman family such as sons by minor wives, see Ovid), then does that not set the president that the few Biblical models for marriage are not immutable but rather culturally informed? And this then ties back to the issue of “gay sexual behavior” as being acceptable, as all sexual behavior is, as long as it occurs within the boundary of marriage. Like I said, a lot to talk and think about.

    Thanks for being willing to talk about all this. You’ve really given me more to think about. I’m a bisexual Christian male. Normally I don’t go around putting labels on myself because instead of being attracted specifically to men or women, I am attracted to certain personality types. I personally couldn’t care less about the plumbing involved. I have completely and passionately loved only three people in my life so far (2 girls, 1 guy) and I am sure someday I will find the right one that God has readied for me since before I was born. Man or woman, I don’t really care, because once I meet them I will love them with everything, and I will marry them, regardless of what the church has to say about it. Not because of rebelliousness, or because I love Christ but not the church (his bride!). No, the reason is simply because the church has a LONG history of making sharp 180 degree changes to its doctrinal tune (see Slavery, Woman’s Rights, Democracy, etc) and so I won’t let fallible church doctrine dictate my moral choices. I’d rather leave that to my conscience, the guiding of the Holy Spirit, and my faith that while man looks at the outward appearance, God looks at my heart and knows that in loving someone, even if it is a man, my heart is still turned towards Him, the author of Love, the definition of Love.

    I’ll get off my soap box now. Thank you again for making this blog. You are wonderful and I can tell that this will be used as a conduit of love and hope for many many people who are wandering lost and alone.

    • Thank you for your comment. I will address this in a future post. Traditional marriage (one man and one woman) I believe is rooted in God’s original intent for humans after He finished creating them using whatever process He used to do so (Genesis 2). There are many reasons why I think it is different from the Church changing its stance on other topics.

  11. I do appreciate the perspective here, especially in the “Life is not about…” paragraph. But I have to make a set of points that hopefully hang together, touching on culture, language, and logic.
    There is a real cultural divide between the left and the right, between conservative and liberal (consult Jonathan Haidt’s work demonstrating the significantly difference range of values terminology between those two sides), and language is one of the main ways of conveying and reinforcing culture. Furthermore, the first step in any logical discussion is to clearly define the terms. You’ve done an admirable job on several of those, but there are a few other terms you use that may lack clarity, since they mean difference things depending upon the culture in which they are used. I should state that I have lived in both cultures, in the church on one hand, and in a college that was very much a base of operations for a hard left agenda (sometimes very deliberate, sometime just due to undergraduate groupthink) to undermine conservative morality. I heard those conversations in classrooms, read them in the student paper, heard them in the student union–so I’m not some right-wing nut case frothing at the mouth about liberal conspiracies (although consult Haidt’s work again for a look at which side actually tends to have better argumentation). So, with that said, here are some terms that you might need to be careful with:
    1. “fundamentalist”–What exactly do you mean by that? In Christian university circles, it may have one set of denotations, and almost certainly has connotations of irrational, defensive, reactionary. However, in other circles, that word means anyone at all who holds to the ultimate truth-value of Scripture, whether it be on salvation, or on ethics, or whatever. So, your confession of Christ could in fact be labeled “fundamentalist” by some.
    2. “subtlety”–especially in the hands of the theological wing of the hard left, this can be a word that sets off warning for those who actually believe in the infallible truth of Scripture. One sometimes finds all kinds of central doctrines being redefined or set aside under the language of “subtlety.” So, be aware that some–myself, for example–may in fact be very cautious when confronted with the goal of “subtlety.” (see also “nuance” and “sophisticated”).
    3. “empowering”–Now, I don’t know where you’re bringing this term in from, and it certainly can have a legitimate biblical meaning, but to my ears, it’s part of a certain dialect, if you will, which includes “validating,” “affirming,” “valuing,” etc. That dialect, again to my ears, is the dialect of the left: all those terms, in that linguistic culture, boil down to mean “allowing one to engage in the behavior” or even “calling that behavior good.” As I said, this could, in theory, have a perfectly legitimate biblical meaning, but you have to reckon with culture and language, and that’s a language of the left to many Christians. Thus, as soon as you start using those terms, some people will respond the way many British, say, responded to the German language after 1940 (doesn’t mean German is a bad language, but their reaction to it was understandable).
    4. “traditional”–someone has already mentioned that.

    By the way, kudos to you for not using “homophobia” at all–I’d exhort you to continue not to use it, since it is by definition labeling a position or person as irrational (that’s what a phobia is, of course), and tends to shut off dialogue pretty quick. It also can defined in various ways: some would, oddly enough, put the label “homophobic” on your statement that “gay sexual behavior is morally wrong.”

    So, this may be overly long for a comment, but I do value the perspective you are setting forth here, and so I’m seeking to interact with it in a properly subtle way. I also hope I’m not being patronizing, by giving you some kind of pedantic lecture on the meanings of the words you’re using. I’m honestly hoping to contribute to the clarity of the discussion, but I’ve had too many discussions of various kinds run off the rails at the “defining terms” stage, and I don’t want that to happen here.

    Blessings on your efforts!

    • Joshua, I appreciate your desire to seek clarification. I will briefly define the terms you mentioned.

      Traditional: I mean marriage between one man + one woman. I actually don’t like the term traditional because I think it makes this definition of marriage seem rooted in culture, which is what I’m trying to avoid. The Christian conceptualization of marriage has been around since God created human beings (“and the two shall become one flesh”). Perhaps you know of a better one?

      Empowering: I think I may choose to expound on this in my next blog post. What
      I mean by empowering is that gay people are utilized in the Church and
      motivated to find ways to contribute to God’s redemption of the world. I feel that gay celibate Christians fear being active members of the Body b/c they fear people would question their involvement if people knew they were gay. Plus, with
      any type of work, it requires support from the community to be the most effective or emotionally healthy, and gay Christians need to have a healthy support network of friends with whom they can be open with about their sexuality in order to have authentic community.

      Fundamentalism: I equate this more with legalism. Perhaps that’s a better term to use. So a church or anyone who is very legalistic would be fundamentalist in my mindset. There is a better way to define this, and it comes with a lot more characteristics, but I don’t want to take the time to do that right now.

      Subtlety: I think what i mean is that we tend to “simplify” the homosexuality debate —- such as one side saying gay Christians should just either 1) change or 2) stay celibate and the conversation ends there. This isn’t helpful. Or what I’ll often see is a statement such as “God’s law clearly says marriage is between man and a woman, so homosexuals are sinful and need to repent.” There are so many problems with just bluntly saying this statement — such as 1) it makes NO sense to a non-Christian, 2) it does not show any compassion for a gay person or recognize just how difficult it is to ask someone not to fall in love with someone else when it feels very natural to do so, and 3) it makes the person look hypocritical because they probably have a heterosexual relationship or plans to have one. The other side simplifies way too much as well. We have our doctrines and beliefs as Christians, but we need to recognize the complexities of how these practically play out and how we communicate our beliefs. Right now, how we are largely communicating our beliefs about homosexuality are not working.

      I hope that helps. I wrote those up quickly.

  12. First, thank you for sharing your post publicly. I know it must be hard, as I can’t relate to this. I am also a former Wheaton alum. While I love and care about humanity, I think that it is a problem to be accepting of the “gay sexual behavior”, which I think you agree on. However, also I think as followers of Christ, if your lifestyle and internal wirings are not what God intended then you must be living wrong. I know that sounds harsh, but just like God had done in Genesis, Adam and Eve–with the purpose of having man and woman together, so we can expect for today. Man has become more and more and more evil. So much to say that Romans 1:26-27 is becoming more of a reality. 26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

    Yes, you might say that has to do with relations. But as you said, if you were not a Christian you would probably be in a gay relationship. Therefore, you would committing a sin before God. You being gay, “strongly attracted to other males”, is something God would not want. That would defy what he wanted in the beginning. You living constantly in that way, would put you at odds with what the Bible says. This is one of the most debated and controversial topics in Christianity. I was talking to a professor about this at Wheaton who is very LOVING and probably one of the best professors at the school. He did say, and I agree, that the issue of homosexuality will be the downfall of the church.

    Everyone says that we need to be loving and accepting. I agree that we need to be loving and show care and grace just like Jesus would. Being against homosexuality and the gay sexual behavior is something Jesus would want. We shall not compromise. Also to say that Jesus did not judge is totally wrong. Everyone portrays Jesus as this soft spoken fun fluffy guy. I can assure you that he was tough, and was really convicted in what he stood for. Yes, he pursued non-violent actions but his tone was not soft spoken. I am 100% behind this. I will not compromise because then we will have gay marriages in the church, and sexual behavior being okay by the church.‎”And you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved”
    ““If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you.” 19“If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you. 20“Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A slave is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you; if they kept My word, they will keep yours also. 21“But all these things they will do to you for My name’s sake, because they do not know the One who sent Me. 22“If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin.”
    These verses give me inspiration. People may hate me because I believe what I believe. However, I know it is right.

    “9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.”

    I know I sound harsh, but I am convicted in my beliefs and will stand for them.
    I will pray for you. “”What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
    God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?” (Rom. 6:1-2)

    I know you struggle with this. And for me to act like you dont would be wrong. I cant assume that you havent tried to “fix” yourself or wonder what is “wrong” with you. It is a battle for you every day, just like it may be a battle for me regarding having thoughts towards women in a sexual way. This debate will continue until Jesus comes back again. Wheaton was a great place for me, and I am sad that some people feel alienated and heart broken over their feelings. Jesus loves each and every one of us. That does not mean that, however, to go and live a life that is not pleasing unto God.

    I know this is a long response, and it can be hard to articulate my viewpoint. I believe you are not born gay but psychological forces and other environmental factors shape one’s orientation. The most common thing I hear is, “I wouldnt choose to be gay if I had choice. Who would want that after all the persecution that comes with it?” I agree with that, but I would also say I didn’t choose to have an inclination to wanting to be prideful, rich, greedy, selfish, etc. We live in a fallen world. I believe God has a plan, and I know that there are people are who were gay who are now happily married to their spouse of the opposite-gender. THis may not work for everyone, and I am not advocating for the weird therapies and seminars out there. But I do know that God transforms. Those who were gay knew they were living a life and mindset that didnt please GOd. They gave it all to him and he transformed them. God wants to redeem.

    • I used to have a view articulated very similar to yours, and I have many issues with the things you’ve said. I think that what you articulated has elements of denying the embodiedness of humans — particularly the embodiedness that affects our conscious experiences. Every sexual inclination/attraction we have has a physical correlate I can show you on our brains; if I were to remove this, you would no longer have sexual feelings. If I were to cut off your right arm, you would likely still have feelings that it still exists (phantom limb) — no matter how hard you tried to not feel it. I agree with you that I should avoid behaviors that would reinforce my same-sex attraction (for instance, looking at gay porn and lusting after other guys would reinforce this), but I disagree with the amount of freedom you suggest regarding my same-sex attraction. The sort of feelings and inclinations you have towards the other gender are the same I have towards males.

      I don’t believe the verses you referenced are referring to being same-sex attracted. In Romans, “God gave them up to their dishonorable passions” is directly followed with lesbian practice and men having sex with men. This suggests to me, then, that these behaviors that follow explain what it means to “being given up to one’s dishonorable passions.” Furthermore, I would say passion likely refers to same-sex lust. And your verses from Corinthians 6 in the NIV read, “9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. — Without going into an in depth exegesis, I believe the best translation is most definitely “men who have sex with men.” Again, this is gay sexual behavior.

      I have never found any verses that suggest same-sex attraction means the individual is sinful.

      Also, as a side note, it’s not a good idea to say “I know it is right” in your post. To me, this makes me much less distrustful of your argument, and does not exhibit a spirit of humility. Unless you truly believe you’ve never been wrong or have never changed any of your Christian beliefs, then I suggest not saying this. It is unnecessary and hurts the Christian witness.

  13. I agree with this. I don’t really have a strong stand one way or another. I believe gay “behavior” (sexual) is a sin but I don’t believe being gay is a sin. We’re all born into sin, and God sees all sin as equal (not counting blaspheming against the Holy Spirit which I’m not sure has really been defined). But that’s where GRACE comes in. I’m an addict and I believe I was born that way, but I don’t choose to make that my lifestyle. I believe that addiction is a sin because it creates an idol out of whatever I’m addicted to. But I don’t actively accept this as “okay” or “that’s who I am” because that doesn’t align with the Bible.

    I’m not opposed to gay marriage because I don’t believe a judge or a government ordains a marriage, I believe God does. So the matter is in God’s eyes, not ours.

  14. I appreciate that you have implied a focus on repentance as the main condition of following Jesus, rather than focusing on the fact that we all sin and homosexuality just just another sin. The problem I have with those who engage in gay sexual behavior or lust and still call themselves Christians is that they have accepted those sins as NOT sins, rather than repenting and turning away from the behavior. If we accept any sin as NOT sin, including adultery, fornication, lust, polygamy, incest, lying, stealing, murder (abortion anyone?), giving more importance to other people or things than God, using God’s name to invoke false authority, etc., rather than repenting, we cannot call ourselves followers of Jesus.

    I encourage you to continue to NOT find your identity in your sexual attractions but in God, as it appears you do. By doing this, you are being 100% true to yourself. Would we say that a man who doesn’t act on his sexual attraction to multiple women is not being true to himself if he does not label himself a polygamist and marry all those women? Or that a woman who doesn’t act on her sexual attraction to a man other than her husband is not being true to herself if she does not become an adulterer? Besides that rhetoric, I also think being “true to yourself” is misleading – after all, as followers of Christ, we should be “true to Christ” more than to ourselves.

    Finally, I thought you might like the following article analyzing the Larry King interview in 2010 with Jennifer Knapp, a self described lesbian and Christian, and a pastor. It raises some great points that merit further discussion in the homosexuality vs. Christianity arena. http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevinwax/2010/04/26/jennifer-knapp-larry-king-why-we-always-lose-this-debate/

    • Thanks Rachel. I think your adultery examples illustrate well how we should interact with our sexual feelings. I think our society does have a mentality that “if you feel like you want to have sex with whomever, then you should have sex with whomever,” which I think will ultimately end up being a less satisfying life. If we are constantly trying to “consume” things to make us feel certain ways, then we actually have less freedom and become controlled by those things and life becomes an endless search to feel the right way.

      • Also, I wanted to add, that yes — you’re right that if we’re followers of Christ, we must repent of our sins. However, some Christians do not think that gay relationships are a sin, and they have a particular interpretation of verses to believe this. So from their perspective, they do not have unrepentant sin. While I believe their conclusion is wrong, I cannot argue with someone who has honestly come to this conclusion. Also, I believe that all of us have unrepentant sin that we are unaware of, so even though I know you’re probably not saying this, I think it is dangerous to question the salvation of anyone with unrepentant sin because I think it is asking for condemnation on ourselves.

  15. “Life is not about what I want. It is about submitting my life to Christ. This is what Christ did when He died on the Cross for us —- He chose to give up His life for the redemption of the world and our salvation. So if Christ can do this with His life, then I can do this with being gay.”

    Wow. I think we all need to learn from your humility and your surrender to Christ. Living the celibate life (as I believe is purposed by God outside of heterosexual marriage) as a gay or straight person is the opposite of easy, yet the Church (at least how I’ve experienced it) is, by and large, failing to provide a supportive and fulfilling community in this respect. This deficiency only speaks further of your conviction to place Christ above all.

    Thank you so much for your boldness in writing this. I can’t wait for the post on Gnosticism!!

  16. Excellent goods from you, man. I’ve understand your stuff previous to and you’re just extremely wonderful. I really like what you’ve acquired here, certainly like what you’re saying and the way in which you say it. You make it entertaining and you still take care of to keep it smart. I cant wait to read far more from you. This is actually a great website.

  17. It is incredibly refreshing to hear a Biblically established opinion on this matter. You have my prayers as you continue this blog, and struggle with your desires. I do however ask that you consider revising your opening statement. I know many Christians who either consider themselves “fundamentalist right” or feel others would consider them as such (I myself would gain this title from many,) but either do not consider sexual orientation strictly a choice or would be willing to reconsider if reading something well reasoned (such as your blog,) and therefore should not be excluded from your audience as an opening point.
    I have posted a recommendation of this blog on my Facebook, as I pray that this discussion may have a lasting impact on the church: what a testimony it would be if a radical change swept the church, and we learned a Christ-like love for gays, while maintaining a Biblical (also Christ-like) stance on the sin!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s