If I get divorced then I can get forgiveness for that divorce. Therefore I can move on unless I get divorced again. Then I must start over.

If I am a practicing gay I can get forgiveness for my actions and then I can move on unless I engage in homosexual behavior again. Then I start over..

I feel I had to expand on that because many just can’t tell the difference. As I’ve said and you’ve agreed on, the lgbt community and their supporters will view the slightest disagreement (you don’t need to go as far as banning same-sex marriage and the unacceptable vitriolic/violent bullying) as hatred and bigotry.

Plenty of gays and lesbians identify themselves primarily through their orientation. Question: if you call yourself a “straight Christian,” can I say that you primarily put your identity in your heterosexuality? I doubt that…you will say that “Oh, I don’t put my sexuality as the center of my identity and I am simply identifying my sexual orientation, which doesn’t identify my whole personhood.” Being straight doesn’t make you holy, pal. Look, a gay Christian may mean a Christian who actively engages in the “gay lifestyle” and put their identity in their homosexuality. OR…they can be celibate and NOT in the lifestyle, but are using it in the same way many call themselves “straight Christians.” “Straight” or “gay” can be used to identify your attraction and gay people can’t control their attraction towards the same sex anymore than you can control your attraction towards women…what you can control is how you express your sexuality. There is a non-Christian, openly gay Irish celebrity, he said that he’s gay but “gay” is not who he is, it’s just a part of who he is and it does NOT define him as a person(yes, he did say that. Surprised?), just as your heterosexuality is simply part of who you are. Your statement is a sweeping generalization, all you have to do is ask the person what they mean when they call themselves “gays” and “lesbians”…doesn’t always mean that “Oh…they just LOOOVEE to identify themselves with their sins.”

If you call yourself a straight Christian, does that also count as a qualifier? Straight doesn’t make you holy. Heterosexuality does not get you to heaven. The thing is that many people call them straight Christians and no one goes to accuse them of identifying themselves by their heterosexuality. As soon as the person is gay, you insist that they MUST ALWAYS mean they pet their gay sins.

Thank you, Frank!

To all other Christians who think they’re better because they’re straight—listen to Frank.

Just to make the divorce situation clear, the remarriage is an adulterous situation. If you believe that is true, then the fix is to split up (some Anabaptist groups require this). Confessing that the remarriage is wrong wouldn’t make the situation no longer adulterous. If you argue it does, why couldn’t gays say their relationships were sinful and then just remain in them?

If you don’t agree that those who divorce are not in an adulterous situation, then you don’t agree with scripture.

If you steal from work every day, confessing this doesn’t allow you to continue to steal. Confessing a state of sin does not change the sinful status of that sinful state.

Where did that logic come from? That makes no sense.

I heard Tony Campolo tell a story about a pastor talking to a prostitute in New York. Stuck in drugs, depravity, hopeless, her daughter going down the same path. He asked her if she thought about going to church, and her response was, “why the hell would I do that, I already feel like crap”. Something is wrong when the price of admission is perfection, and lets be honest that is what legalism has done to us. We have to talk about sin in an honest way. Every time I have willfully engaged in it in my 30 years of Christianity, I can look back on the damage it has caused. But the problem is that we can’t be honest and work through our sin when we worship with people who don’t have any. It’s pretty lonely. Just on the topic of remarriage, we bicker like the Pharisee’s about what “true” repentance looks like, only God knows what true repentance is, we don’t get to judge that. We forget the same Jesus that said remarriage is a sin, didn’t say that to the woman at the well. He just loved her. Nothing motivates like love, legalism doesn’t come close. Nice post VidS

Re your first paragraph. It is indeed interesting, but neither illogical or inconsistent. Mark Driscoll explained it as a matter of principle and method. Regarding the head covering, the principle is that Christian women behave godly and the method at the time was head covering as that outer symbol. God demands the exact same thing from young ladies 2000 years ago as He does today, head covering is so secondary to that bigger spiritual issue. I mean, a woman can wear a head covering and still secretly “sleeps around”…what’s the point of the head covering? Of course it’s not a sin to do away with it. I’m neither a Roman Catholic or an Eastern Orthodox. I could say all sorts of things on their teachings, but I’m not one of them, so I am not in a position to defend them. You should converse with a Catholic or an Eastern Orthodox to get your questions answered. I’ll tell you this though: unlike the majority of Protestants, Roman Catholicism doesn’t find Scripture to be the highest authority: it’s BOTH Scripture AND their traditions…just FYI in case you don’t know. Now you see why I don’t want to comment on their practice?

Regarding remarriage and divorce. I did say that IDEALLY, if Christians really follow the Scripture then: a) They shouldn’t ever get a divorce and b) IF they do, they should not remarry c) If you get a divorce, try to forgive and reconcile. God doesn’t override the free will….some who call themselves devout Christians still get a divorce…sometimes (in no-fault divorce, cases other than adultery) it’s because one spouse REALLY pushes for the split and there is nothing that the other spouse can do. The only way to repent from a divorce is either you stay single AFTER the divorce and NOT remarry OR reconcile with the ex-spouse. If the person remarries after a divorce, I find that if they split to repent, they are repenting through the sin of divorce…again…makes no sense. Even if you push for a reconciliation with the ex-spouse and the ex-spouse refuses, is it right to “coerce” the other person to get back together? I can see why you think that if they stay married then they continually live in adultery…but at the same time to split up and get a divorce again is also a sin. Recall the woman at the well…when Jesus talked with her she was with the fifth “husband/boyfriend” or something. Would Jesus tell her to marry the current “boyfriend” although she had split up/gotten a divorce with the previous “boyfriends/husbands”? Split up with the current “beau” and live continually in the sin of divorce? In fact He didn’t address that with her. I’m not saying He was okay with it, just food for thought. This is why prevention is key in dealing with these kinds of issues. Often times one’s attitude about love, marriage, and family life are formed before the marriage happens…so churches need to deal with that and strengthen the couples’ marriage any way they can.

Once again, I’d like to express that I know conservative churches are still against heterosexual sins. The only difference that I observe is that they tend to extend more grace to heterosexual sinners and they don’t take the legal route to deal with hetero sins, compared to how they deal with homosexuals. I agree that it is very sad, infuriating, and it needs to change.

The way I see the problem in how the conservative churches deal with homosexuality is the way they treat gays and lesbians WITHIN and OUTSIDE their congregations, not their interpretation of the clobber passages. I expect them to treat gays and lesbians who are in the “lifestyle”-Christian or not- the exact same way they treat other non-Christians. I am friends with a devout Christian couple and another STAUNCH atheist couple…I don’t treat them differently, as much as I disagree with the atheist couple on a lot of issues.

I expect a high-quality spiritual and pastoral care towards gay and lesbian Christians who follow the conservative churches’ demand to be celibate (based on their biblical interpretation). The way I see it is that these guys are already celibate, doing all they can to be faithful, and still the churches treat them like second-class citizens. It’s like, “Good, you’re celibate and not in the gay lifestyle, now we will pretend like you don’t exist because we are creeped out by your struggle compared to other churchgoers’ struggles with other non-gay sins.” This is so pathetic.

Are you sexually deviant Drew?

I just read Romans, it’s pretty fresh. But I did skim it again, at your request. You are absolutely right. We are free from sin, we are not slaves to it, and yet everyone of us struggles. So if every Christian struggles with something we are free from, then I think you are over simplifying Romans 6, either that or the Christian faith is just impossible to live.The same Paul who said we are free from sin also said the thing I know I should not do I find myself doing. So if Paul lived in tension…so? What does that mean? Sin is dangerous and should be taken seriously, agreed, but you avoided the question.

My point Drew is this, the church has made homosexuality a sin above all other sins. It has done it by their words and actions. It has made homosexuality the unforgivable sin. The illness that the only cure resides in a place you are not welcome. My point is the church is full of sin (that they are free from;) and what we do is project. I don’t want to look at my own sin so I look at others. Combine that with acceptable cultural bigotry well… here we are. I will not see another teenager grow up in the church, walk out the door of said church, and put a gun in their mouth because they were told over and over that God hates them. I will find as many as I can, and beg for forgiveness. Because I contributed, because I was silent. You have all the answers, I commend you. I only have one left.

When our theology becomes a weapon, and not a tool of redemption, I think we need to re examine our theology, it seems vastly different than the life of Christ. But this is an old argument, Grace VS Legalism, old as the book of Romans;) We are not going to convince each other. I think you strain at a gnat and swallow a camel, and you think I’m a “compromiser”. So sadly, I think we are just going to talk past each other. All I can say is this, if anyone walks away from the church with the impression God hates them, I believe this is wrong. But, I guess we can always take comfort in winning the argument, right?

Because you think this is not widespread is evidence that you don’t know any homosexuals, or at least this is something that doesn’t come up in conversation. It’s very difficult to love people you know nothing about, I guess if this is a topic you care about, than maybe you should get to know some homosexuals. There is nothing wrong with dialog. Did you know 40% of teenage runaways are homosexual? Homeless because their religious parents kick them out of the house ( often with violence) when they find out they are “sinners”. That’s not insignificant. My point to you is not that we ignore, or redefine sin, but that we don’t elevate one sin over another. The last time I checked, divorce and remarriage ( except in the case of adultery) is adultery. Adultery made the top ten no no’s, homosexuality did not. And yet I’m sure you are surrounded by people in your church that are in that situation. You don’t go around with your bony finger of condemnation pointed at them ( I give you the benefit of the doubt), or make them leave the church and live celibate lives before they are welcome again, but you love them, and move toward Jesus together in community. And yet we cloister together with people who sin like we do and bask in Gods grace, and shut the door to those who make us uncomfortable. Sounds familiar. You are concerned about sin, you should be. But you should start with your own.

You are right, I do not know you, and it is not fair of me to categorize you. To be honest, when I mentioned teens killing themselves because they have been told all their life Jesus, and by default everyone around them hates them, you responded with a callous, nothing to see here attitude and it pissed me off. This is personal to me. When I get pissed I get snarky, that is my sin, and for that I apologize.

Seeing as how the mere suggestion of having this discussion with your homosexual “friends” pissed you off, makes me think you are pretty cozy with your own narrative.

I do get pissed off when those who claim to be Christ followers are callous to the suffering of others. From the things you have said I am sure that you have the holy spirit, and you are acting like a D%@# just to win an argument, I think you probably do have compassion, it’s just weakness to show it. It’s what men in our society have been taught. And the world just keeps on spinning.

“Sheer scholarship alone cannot reveal to us the Gospel of grace. We must never allow the authority of books, institutions, or leaders to replace the authority of knowing Jesus Christ personally and directly. When the religious views of others interpose between us and the primary experience of Jesus as the Christ, we become unconvinced and unpersuasive travel agents handing out brochures to places we have never visited.”

Brennan Manning ” The Ragamuffin Gospel”

Sorry about all the spelling errors above.

“Repentant homosexuals” (i.e., those who choose to be celibate irregardless of a “change” in their sexual orientation) don’t have it easy within the church. Many are still looked down upon and discriminated by other members of the church. I can’t argue with churches who decide to go with pro-gay theology b/c it’s their choice to interpret the Bible their way, but I expect A LOT from “conservative” Christian churches in the way they minister to those struggling with homosexuality. Refusing to change the traditional theology is fine and expecting gay Christians to be celibate is something that these churches have the right to demand as much as a lot of people won’t like that. There is also nothing they can do about “unrepentant gay Christians,” you just have to part with them cordially. However, I think they need to change a lot of things like “praying away the gay.” It is not right to condemn gays and lesbians for a lack of faith or not praying hard enough because they fail to be straight. I also disagree with certain paradigm that the ex-gay therapists-Christians or not-use to “cure” the gays. I’m not so sure tthat men become gay because of weak fathers and overbearing mothers. Not all women “turn gay” because of sexual abuse…these stereotypes are not (always) true. God also does not necessarily intend for the gays to become straights and marry the opposite sex. If they decide that God thinks homosexuality is sin, they can defend that, but don’t put their flawed psychological paradigm on homosexuality on the same level as the Scripture.

I think bluelight is right though that the conservative Christian church react a lot more intensely to homosexuality than divorce and all other heterosexual sins. I wouldn’t use the term “overlook” however. I think that we need to be sensitive to the needs of the Christian brothers and sisters struggling with homosexuality. If it’s not homosexuality, I think the church tends to think “Oh, they’re just struggling, let’s help them to correct their sins lovingly.” If it’s a person struggling homosexuality that struggles, they will kick him out the instance the person falls into sin…they don’t even bother to discern if it is a deliberate, continual thing, or “an occasional stumble.” Sad.

I am not that familiar with liberal churches too much, actually. I get a sense of what they’re teaching, but obviously not as knowledgeable as you are. I guess the PERCEPTION is that conservatives react so strongly b/c they take the battle publicly, using the court system. With divorce, promiscuity, marital infidelity, common-law marriage (which I believe facilitate premarital sex), no such legal actions.

This is exactly right and is why people are rightfully speaking up about this sin.

I agree fully Neal! Everyone deserves the same love, grace and mercy.

Perhaps they are a minority and I’ve never researched the statistics too, but from experience they’re not treated with equal grace and love as other sinners that the church takes care of. That is so not fair.

I am too in full agreement with Tony Campolo, but I just disagree with how the conservative churches deal with homosexuality, even as I interpret the clobber passages the same way they do. E.g., I thought Huckabee shouldn’t pull that “Chick-fil-a day” circus and Neil Patrick Harris in Super Bowl ad does not equal pushing the gay agenda.

I’m curious why conservative Christians take the legal route with the homosexuality debate, but not on issues like divorce & remarriage, common-law marriage etc. Like, why ban same-sex marriage, but no effort is put into de-legalizing no-fault divorce? Of course they’re entitled to propose laws against gay marriage strictly b/c of this country is a democracy, but when I hear things like gay marriage threatens traditional marriage—I find that’s a stretch. Divorce is a much, much more direct threat to traditional marriage, after all, divorce breaks up marriage–a gay couple getting a marriage license will not break up any hetero couples’ marriage.I could be wrong, but I then started to think that conservative churches try to ban same-sex marriage because they find it a worse sin than other heterosexual sins that they don’t try to ban legally.I don’t understand the logic. I hope it’s not because they put themselves in God’s position and unbiblically created their own hierarchy of sins.

Chick-fil-a will not go bankrupt because Cathy defends “traditional values.” I think what ticks off lgbt people and their supporters the most is that that their money go to ex-gay therapy organizations. Some lgbt people that I talk to have a lot more issues with that than Cathy’s opinion. I mean, when I think about it, if Chick-fil-a revenues don’t go into “anti-gay” causes, his opinion is not as big of a deal though it will still be considered hateful. I disagree with some gov’t officials that propose the restaurant joint should be banned in their cities, but I think customers have the right to not go there and spend their money. My problem with him is that he expects people to not react or whatever because it’s his freedom of speech. I defend that right, but he needs to deal with the reality that it’s not equal freedom from the CONSEQUENCES of speech. From this standpoint, I’m not sympathetic towards Chick-fil-a. If I don’t go to chick-fil-a, that doesn’t mean I don’t support “traditional values” either anyway.

My issue is not about what the conservatives vote for. If someone proposes a bill that fits the conservatives’ values, you bet they’ll vote on it and they have every right to. I also defend the conservatives’ right to propose it legislatively, but I question their motives as I’ve mentioned in my previous post. That is the part that makes me feel so uneasy in this same-sex debate, as much as I agree with their biblical interpretations.