Why I Think Jesus Would Bake a Cake for a Same-Sex Marriage

Cake For A Same Sex Marriage
“Jesus appeared to ‘condone’ what his community considered sinful all the time.”

Aaron Klein, a Baker in Oregon, may face up to $50,000 in fines, for refusing to bake a cake for the wedding of two women, depending on the outcome of a complaint filed January 28 with the Oregon Department of Justice. Klein cites his Christian religious beliefs for his refusal to deliver the wedding cake. The 2007 Oregon Equality Act, which prohibits businesses from discriminating against people based on their sexual orientation and gender identity, among other things, suggests the cake-less couple does have a legitimate legal claim to be served.

I like this Aaron Klein. He and his family appear to be exactly the sort with which I’d chat at a soccer game or sing songs next to in worship. He’s married, with three kiddos whose age/gender lineup seems to match mine. Klein’s earnest insistence—“I honestly did not mean to hurt anybody, didn’t mean to make anybody upset, [it's] just something I believe in very strongly”— rings true to my ear. And as I wrestle to make sense of how this guy—who’s so much like me—ends up in this sticky situation, I can’t overlook the church’s complicity in creating the powder keg culture that breeds this type of blast.

Related: Steve Chalke Drops the Bomb in Support of Committed, Faithful Same-sex Relationships by Tony Campolo

Specifically, modern American evangelicals—who I truly believe really want to love our neighbors who are different than we are—have been given two conflicting messages about how to behave toward those we deem to be “other.”

On one hand, we’ve been warned to keep our distance from the world. And for the most part, we’ve done it. We’ve both steered clear of situations and people who might trigger our own sin temptations and we’ve also avoided situations which could give the appearance that we’re condoning the behavior of others which we deem sinful. While it seems clear to me that Klein does not have a hateful agenda to condemn, it’s also evident that he’s not wanting to appear to condone what his convictions tell him is sin.

But the other message we’ve received, as evangelicals, is the prime directive, from Jesus, to love God and love our neighbors. When we’re honest, we can admit that we do it pretty well with those who are a lot like us and we struggle to find ways to love with integrity folks who aren’t like us. The overwhelming majority of us want, desperately, to love our neighbors whose religion or gender or race or social class or orientation or occupation do not match our own. And, because “love” is such a fluid concept, I’m sure for all those who insist that the most loving thing Klein could do would be to not bake the cake, many others would find cake-baking the more loving alternative.

These two directives—to keep unstained by the world and to love our neighbors—are, by no accident, in constant holy tension. They were for Jesus and they are for us. When we look at the way Jesus engaged with those his community considered sinful, he embraced—and even seemed to go looking for!—this holy tension. He was derided by the Religious specifically because, by lending his presence places like sinner parties, he accepted an “other” exactly as they were.

This week I can’t help but contrast the current Oregon wedding cake debacle to the gracious witness of one Tony Campolo who celebrated the birthday of a Hawaiian prostitute named Agnes, surrounded by her friends, in a greasy diner at 3:30 in the morning. Overwhelmed by the gesture, Agnes asked sheepishly if they could wait to eat the cake awhile. She wanted to savor it. In fact, with the permission of Harry-the-cake-maker, she disappeared into the night carrying it carefully back to her apartment.

ADVERTISEMENT

-------------

That weird unlikely scenario required holy imagination.

Also by Margot: “That’s the Kingdom. I Want In!”

Today the church’s lack of such creativity in engaging with those we designate as “other”—whether it’s street-walking Agnes or the same-sex marrying couple, Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter—is a failure to pattern our lives after the person of Jesus. So though we’ve made declarations about what we believe, the safe distance we’ve kept from the world has kept us from loving the ones God loves.

To love—in the offensive way that Jesus loves—I think, would have been to bake the cake.

In fact, I’m of the mind that another Christian sharing Klein’s moral convictions could have, with every ounce of integrity, baked the cake the same way that a Baptist preacher from Philly served one up in the Hawaiian islands. I’m convinced by the gospel witness that whether Jesus-the-baker would have been in favor of or opposed to same-sex marriage would not have determined whether or not he baked the cake.

A number of years back, those who’d gathered at a greasy Hawaiian diner, to celebrate the triumph of God’s great love in Jesus, went home, satisfied, cakeless. However, if Oregon wedding guests go home cakeless in 2013, it is because the church has failed to flesh out the radical offensive love of Jesus.


Margot Starbuck is a speaker, volunteer and author of The Girl in the Orange Dress: Searching for a Father Who Does Not Fail and Small Things With Great Love: Adventures in Loving Your Neighbor. Her next book, Permission Granted: And Other Thoughts on Living Graciously Among Sinners and Saints releases in March 2013.

Print Friendly

About the Author

Margot Starbuck

Margot StarbuckMargot Starbuck, is allowed to say our faces and voices are more important than books we write because last year she wrote a book about loving those who are other than we are,  Permission Granted, and she just released one about reflecting the gracious Face which is true— Not Who I Imagined: Surprised by a Loving God. More @ MargotStarbuck.comView all posts by Margot Starbuck →

  • Margie Hearron

    I don’t believe homosexuality is a sin. I don’t believe homosexual sex is a sin. With that said, if homosexuality was a sin, why is there NO MENTION in the OLD TESTAMENT about lesbians?? None. What if what we think in the OLD TESTAMENT is only talking about idolatry…temple and shrine male prostitutes that worshiped fertility gods/godesses. And since almost no homosexual today worships at fertility temples, no homosexuals are participating in that type of idolatry that was mentioned in Leviticus. Also some translate the verse in Leviticus to say that a man should not lay with a man that acts or pretends to be a woman… trannies?? Regardless of all that, Jesus never mentions homosexuality as a sin. I go with Jesus. I will love homosexuals and fight for their civil rights in the USA. We straight people should take more time to research all sides of the issue of Bible and homosexuality and sexuality and idolatry.

    • bluecenterlight

      Amen

    • Jon

      Jesus never mentions bestiality either…does that make it ok? The main reason for bestiality and homosexuality being sins is that they go against what God intended. They are man’s way of saying “I know best” when we clearly do not. The ultimate sin is rejecting God and His ways, anything that goes against His plan (ie. nature) does just that.

    • 22044

      Margie, is any kind of sex wrong? Where is the line drawn? We should love people, but not at the expense of truth.

  • Margie Hearron

    Before someone talks about Sodom and Gomorrah: please read Ezekiel 16:49 “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy” Now if you read in the next verse, you see the word “abomination” or “detestable things”… that could mean anything. Since there is no exact lists of sins except for what is listed in verse 49, we should not assume that Sodom was destroyed for homosexual sins. If that was the case, it would have been mentioned and it wasn’t. :-)

    • 21st C Episcopalian

      Jude 1:7 proves you wrong. The sin of Somon and Gomorrah WAS sexual immorality; anal intercourse.

      • 22044

        On this, I could certainly be wrong. I think the answer is both in Genesis and Ezekiel.

      • http://snommelp.tumblr.com/ Snommelp

        Jude never says anal intercourse. He says “sexual immorality and unnatural lust.” Unnatural lust is a vague term that can mean any of a great number of things. The Greek literally says “went after strange flesh.” In order to interpret Jude as condemning homosexuality, one must bring to the Scripture the presupposition that homosexuality was the sin of Sodom – which makes using Jude to prove that the sin of Sodom was homosexuality an exercise in circular logic.

    • http://snommelp.tumblr.com/ Snommelp

      Isaiah and Jeremiah also provide a list of the sins of Sodom. They include pride, greed, and a failure to care for the poor. Homosexuality is not mentioned by either of these prophets.

  • Idontfeellikecreatingausername

    Can a gay person still expect to be cared for by our Father. Does he not give them their “daily bread” as well? If not bread why not cake?

    • 22044

      A wedding cake is not daily bread.

  • Carl Palmer

    Jesus- baking? I find that hard to believe.

  • Carl Palmer

    Jesus – baking?! I find that hard to believe.

    • Jonathan Starkey

      God the Father is a baker. He provided eternal bread. Manna in the desert. This is what makes Him so approachable. Jesus the showbread. The bread of presence. These are all amazing pictures of our relateable God.

      The sacrifices on the alter were to be smelled all across the city. Then they at it. It’s as if God were at home. God the BBQ pit master.

      If you find it hard to believe, it needs to be revealed to you.

      • Jonathan Starkey

        The showbread freshed baked, the presence of God is like a home. And in that home someone just cooked a loaf of fresh bread, and the smell permeates the house. There is a sense of warm and comfort. mmmm the Presence.

        • Jonathan Starkey

          Also, what about the picture of Jesus making everyone fish dinners on the beach. Oh, and providing 5000 and 7000 people with a meal in the wilderness.

          I could go on and on.

  • Christian Critical Thinker

    A number of you have missed the point here. Sure in each instance there was a cake involved. however, the circumstances are very different. I’m surprised that the author and others have missed the important differences between the two events. The birthday cake for the prostitute wasn’t some extreme example of love. Every Christian would acknowledge everyone’s right to celebrate a birthday. The cake for the same sex wedding was something different. The Bible defines marriage as that between a man and a woman. The Bible also describes the homosexual act as an “abomination”. No Christian could assist in a same-sex wedding in good conscience. That would be aiding and abetting “an abomination”. Fellow Christians, some of you may not like what I’m saying. Perhaps you need to question whether your beliefs are based on the Word or what seems reasonable to post-modern man.

    • bluecenterlight

      Our purpose here is to reconcile the world to God. I have to believe there is a way to stand for what you believe without treating people as the dirty, untouchable class.

  • jsboegl

    New question: In as much as gay advocacy supports human rights issues for gay, lesbian, transgender and bi-sexual (GLBT) persons, someone explain the scriptural justification for so-called “bisexual orientation”?

    • 22044

      Maybe your question is rhetorical?
      If it’s OK, I’ll try to answer like it’s a straight question.
      I wouldn’t take issue if someone says that they’re bisexual. Like other sexual orientations, it is intended to become less identified with someone who wants to follow Jesus as he discovers and trusts his new identity in Christ. (I’m sure I didn’t say anything there you didn’t already know). God bless.

    • bluecenterlight

      There is none. There is also no scriptural justification for heterosexual male lust. But that’s not really a sin, is it? No one really talks about it, so I’m assuming God is not that concerned. Porn would not be a multi billion dollar a year business without Christian dollars. I have been in enough men’s groups over the years to know this is a huge issue. So I guess the question is, if the church is full of guys who sneak off in the middle of the night to their basement to “check for testicular cancer” ;) who has the moral high ground to judge? The point of Romans 1 is Romans 2, you bring condemnation on yourself to harshly judge others sins because you have forgotten your own, and God’s loving kindness in forgiving you. Masturbation has made us excellent stone throwers, as they say, practice makes perfect :)

      • jsboegl

        Yup. You got it right there brother. None of us have the moral high ground to condemn another. We all stand guilty. Porn addicts, adulterers, bigots, homosexuals and those whose hearts are filled with hatred. We all need to heed Jesus’ Words: “Repent! For the Kingdom of God is at hand!”
        I bless you, the baker, the gay couple “and” I as we yield to His order, and zealously live into His vibrant righteousness.

        • daithi duly

          Thanks for your replies jsboegl your comments have been refreshing!

  • bluecenterlight

    The idea that God has appointed us to approve or disapprove of anyone’s sin is ridiculous. Roman 1 lays out a list of sin, from homosexuality to being disobedient to your parents, then Romans 2 says you should never condemn anyone for these sins because we are all guilty. So Christians line up in one of two camps, Romans 1 Christians or a Romans 2, and neither the twain shall meet. Is it possible that both are true? Is it possible that when the bible speaks of sin it is talking to you and not your neighbor? If Isaiah stood before the Lord and felt torn to shreds by the guilt of his own sin, the condemnation of others sin should burn as it leaves our lips. If those of us who God has rescued from the mire of this world have become so righteous that it is impossible for us to reach back and rescue others, then something has gone horribly wrong. I would tell him where he could put his cake, but it would detract from my point :)

    • 22044

      I agree with your general points, but there may be other factors that weren’t presented in the story, that were involved in the bakers’ decision.
      And how can others be rescued, if there’s no assessment that there’s a “fire” that they need to be rescued from?

      • bluecenterlight

        We are called to love our neighbor. I can’t imagine that couple walked away feeling loved. I have to believe that it is possible to disagree and show the love of Christ at the same time, I just don’t see that here. It smacks of taking a political stance. I came to Christ because He loved me first, because He went to great lengths to express that love for me. He offered me compassion when I didn’t deserve it. Even now, when I make the same stupid mistakes, He is gracious and kind, and yet challenges me to never settle for my lesser self. Our message should always be the worlds need for Him. But, if moral perfection were the criteria for my acceptance I would have quit a long time ago, or possibly never started. The broken see their need for Christ, their sanctification however is between them and God.

  • Jonathan Starkey

    Grace isn’t condoning someones behavior. It’s extending the same grace that you’ve been given. Heard that today. Yeah, I don’t agree with you, but I’m going to love you.

    • Jonathan Starkey

      When you receive love on the basis of the things you’ve done that that’s called “merit.” When you receive love when you don’t deserve it that’s called grace.

      • Jonathan Starkey

        And when you are loving and serving those who least deserve it then your looking like Jesus.

  • Jose Gonzales

    I don’t think Jesus baked cakes. That’s not what carpenters do.

  • Jose Gonzales

    If I were a baker, I would bake a cake for a homosexual, or anyone else, because I want their money. But I would not put dirty words on a cake for anyone, nor blasphemous words, and therefore I would also not make a cake for a homosexual “wedding.” I would make a birthday cake for a homosexual, as I would for a Muslim, but I would never make a Jihad cake and I would never make a homo-”wedding” cake, just as I would not make a cake saying F U or celebrating a rape.

    • Jose Gonzales

      If you want a gay “wedding” cake, just buy a normal cake without the names on it, and buy two sets of those little cake people. Then take the two women or two men figures and put them on the cake. How simple is that? Or go find yourself a gay baker who specializes in pervert cakes.

  • Jose Gonzales

    Our society is over-sexualized. Homosexuality is a side-effect over-sexualization. A man’s life does not consist in the abundance of sex a person has, nor in the abundance or partner’s a person has it with. If only the churches would preach that, the problem would be solved. Instead the churches participate in the brainwashing of our youth into over-sexualization by pushing the “beauty” of sex, and denying the dignity of living a celibate life (something Paul teaches in Romans 7 I think it is). The churches need to stop pushing sex, and then homosexuality will naturally go away. Stop pressuring everyone to get married. I don’t mean allow sex outside of marriage, I mean stop pushing sex as important. Christianity is not sex and sex is not required to be a Christian. Quit acting like getting married is required to be a Christian. Quit acting like single people who live celibate lives (i.e. who are virgins) are somehow sinners!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THAT and THAT ALONE will solve the homosexual crisis.

    • Jose Gonzales

      It could be 1 Cor 7 instead of Romans 7.

  • Jose Gonzales

    Church, Quit acting like single people who live celibate lives (i.e. who are virgins) are somehow sinners. Then homosexuality will go away.

  • bluecenterlight

    Many times in scripture, when God does something significant in someones life it starts with a journey. Just like with Abraham, leaving everything behind to a place that God leads. I have felt that pull on my life the last couple of years and my journey starts this spring, leaving Columbus Ohio for Oregon, what God has in store I do not know. I had hoped to meet Richard, and I feel tremendous loss for myself because that is no longer possible in this life. But I feel great joy that He is with the Lord. The world needs more men like him, I pray many will follow his example. As it says in Hebrews 11 ” the world was not worthy of them”, we are blessed to have you as long as we did. God bless you Richard.

  • Ford1968

    Hmmmm…I wonder if this baker would refuse to bake a cake for a Bar Mitzvah. After all, wouldn’t that be condoning Judeism? Surely the sin of rejecting Jesus as the messiah is at least as grave as the sin of pledging oneself for life to the person that they love (who is the same sex).

    No? Is it just gay events we don’t want to condone? I wonder why that is? Could it be that homosexuality has taken on a worst-of-all-sins status in the church? Homosexuality has become a proxy for all things that are contrary to the conservative worldview.

  • SamHamilton

    I agree with Margot’s overall point…the point being made by recounting the oft-told story about Agnes. We shouldn’t fear being “stained” by spending too much time with “sinners.”

    But that’s not the situation with the wedding cake. It doesn’t sound like the baker was concerned about being “stained.” He was concerned about the impression it would leave that he was assisting in celebrating something he finds immoral and against God’s teaching. He might be wrong about God’s teaching, but let’s be clear about what his motivation is. There is always a tension regarding how far we go to associate with certain ways of the world. I think good Christians can disagree in each specific instance.

    Going back to the story of Agnes, the equivalent action in regards to the Oregon baker would have been for Tony to celebrate Agnes’ line of work. He was not. He was celebrating Agnes’ dignity as a human being. The baker was being asked to celebrate the gay marriage, not the two individuals inherent dignity. I can respect him for his choice, particularly considering the legal sanctions.

  • jsboegl

    Friend, you’re correct, but your argument veers from the point. The question wasn’t “what would the CHURCH do?” The question that Starbuck mis-addresses is: “what would JESUS do?” While perfectly loving the polygamist, the adulterer and the homosexual Jesus can hardly celebrate their participation in unrighteousness. It’s from Him, the author of dikaiosune, that we understand and receive grace to do that which is righteous. And my guess is, Jesus is the One the baker in Oregon is trying to please. Not the church.

  • Jon

    I don’t know about Oregon, but in Idaho sodomy, which homosexuality often encompasses, and adultery are both illegal.

  • jsboegl

    Absolutely none of these stories intimates Jesus condoning, much less contributing to individuals’ sinful behavior. “I have come to call the unrighteous to repentance.” (Luke 5:32)

  • Jose Gonzales

    Where does the text say she was a five time adulterer? It says she’d been married 5 times. For all we know they all could have died. Besides, “Receiving a drink from” — you mean like when you go to a restaurant and your food is prepared by only God knows who? or your waitress is an adulteress and you know. If you leave her a tip, are you saying “I approve of adultery?” How did you people get so stupid?

  • otrotierra

    Still looking for those passages where Jesus demands adherence to Levitical Laws banning Toevah behaviors.

  • Jonathan Starkey

    Wondering where baking a wedding cake for someone is condoning their behavior?

  • http://snommelp.tumblr.com/ Snommelp

    If baking a wedding cake is condoning (or contributing to) homosexuality, then turning water into wine is condoning (or contributing to) drunkenness.

  • otrotierra

    Is the baker in Oregon also concerned about customers wearing polyester fabrics? Levitical Law.

  • jsboegl

    Friend, where in the scriptures, (New or Old Covenant) does anyone condone homosexual behavior?
    Where in the scriptures is there an example of God blessing homosexuality? Who, of the thousands mentioned in the Bible were gay? Why is “every” reference to homosexuality in the scriptures, old and new, within the context of judgment and not blessing?

  • jsboegl

    :o) Perhaps you could do a follow up article entitled: Why I Think Jesus Would Celebrate the 70′s…

  • Jon

    Much of Levitical law was ceremonial, and only “applied” before Jesus came. It was meant to show how completely impossible it would be for us to work for our salvation or be good enough for God to accept us. This is why Jesus said that he came not to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it. This means that he is now our “Priest”, he is the One who cleanses us before God, because we cannot do it ourselves, and neither could the Levitical priests.

  • jsboegl

    Paul and Jude, though they seemed to make the covenant distinction re: sacrifice and circumcision etc., remain steadfast in their treatment of homosexuality as sexual immorality. Whether by redaction or blatant disregard, to say anything less is disingenuous to the spirit and plenary nature of the New Testament texts themselves. We don’t need the Old Testament Levitical laws to reveal the unrighteousness of homosexuality. (Though they provide us with great uniformity) .The New Testament scriptures in themselves are enough.
    Romans 1:26–27
    1 Corinthians 6:9–10
    1 Timothy 1:9–10
    Jude 1:7

  • Jose Gonzales

    “Toevah” – speak English. This is America.

  • jsboegl

    Questioning, in keeping with this line of reason, I assume you’re also anti-abortion??

  • Jon

    Everything you just said is simply your “belief”. And you are correct about how people believing that inter-racial marriage was wrong; because they were not founded on anything in the Bible. Homosexuality is directly condemned as a sin in the Bible. This does not mean that Christians are called to not love homosexuals, but they are certainly called to hate homosexuality, which is in my “beliefs”, a choice. There is indeed a difference between sex life and “orientation”, but the Bible condemns men lusting after men and women lusting after women, that sounds a lot like “orientation” to me (Romans 1:26-27). Why would something you are born with be a sin? That would completely contradict the nature of the loving God I believe in, which is what led me to believe that it is a choice.

  • jsboegl

    Not even close to being the same. The wine was free to be enjoyed responsibly or irresponsibly. The cake is/was a direct contribution to the celebration of unrighteousness.

  • Jose Gonzales

    does anyone really still believe in that story? I thought everyone these days knew that John wasn’t historical like the Synoptics, and that this story in particular is a parable.

  • http://www.facebook.com/otro.tierra Otro Tierra

    A minor but significant correction is needed here: physical acts of “sodomy” were indeed prohibited under ancient Jewish civic laws, but the more complex matter of same-sex subjectivity (which didn’t exist historically at that time) is not addressed in scriptures. Because “sodomy” is not synonymous with same-sex subjectivity, there is a much larger conversation to be had here.

  • http://snommelp.tumblr.com/ Snommelp

    The water was turned into wine only after all of the original wine was gone, and when the guests were too drunk to tell good wine from bad – the wine steward says as much. The wine was a direct contribution to drunkenness.

  • http://www.facebook.com/otro.tierra Otro Tierra

    Paul of Tarsus, who was/is not Jesus, did indeed write minor references to immorality such as temple prostitution. Same-sex subjectivity, however, didn’t exist during Paul’s time. A closer look at the passages you mention:

    Romans 1:26–27 straight men behave lustfully (this is not what homosexual subjectivity is)
    1 Corinthians 6:9–10 male prostitution (this is not what homosexual subjectivity is)
    1 Timothy 1:9–10 temple prostitution (this is not what homosexual subjectivity is)
    Jude 1:7 physical act of sodomy (this is not what homosexual subjectivity is)

  • bluecenterlight

    Can you be a Christian and a homosexual?

  • Frank

    What is homosexual subjectivity?

    Gay marriage existed both in Ancient Rome and Ancient China. Paul knew exactly what he was talking about.

  • jsboegl

    Friend, the problem with these arguments of redaction are that they are simply not true to culture, nor the history of textual interpretation. Where in scripture do you find the practice of homosexuality being affirmed? Where among the thousands of individuals mentioned in the scriptures are the references to righteous homosexuals? Why does every text relegate homosexuality to unrighteousness? The mountain of scriptural, cultural, historical evidence is unassailable, except by those who would malign scripture to fit their 20th c. world-views.

  • jsboegl

    Your signifiant “correction” is in fact a significant “redaction”. Neither history, culture nor the history of textual interpretation supports this line of argument. The evidence simply isn’t there friend. It’s a 20c fabrication. The plain meaning of the text is what it is.

  • Jose Gonzales

    what the hell is “subjectivity”?

  • jsboegl

    The gaping flaw in your argument is that John 2 says nothing about guests being “drunk”. In the Hebrew communal culture, this behavior would have been anathema. More pursuant to the Oregon baker’s episode: Jesus was not compelled by the state to make the wine.

  • jsboegl

    Do you want status quo (the order of the common) or statu regis (the order of the King)? Jesus’ beautiful grace is more liberating and transformative than any sin, addiction or dysfunction that could bind us.

  • 22044

    A Christian must find his identity in being a child of God, with a new life sealed by the Holy Spirit – not in his sexual orientation.

  • Jose Gonzales

    Only a sinner identifies their self by their sexuality or supposed sexuality. The righteous identify themselves by their religion or their job. “I’m a carpenter,” or “I’m a Christian.” Someone who says “I’m a homosexual” or “I’m a heterosexual” as their primary identity is a fornicator because sexuality is not our primary identify unless we are fornicators.

  • bluecenterlight

    The whole idea of rights is a man made concept. The only right any of us have, is the right to spend an eternity separated from God. Each and everyone of us have earned that right, homosexual and heterosexual alike. But God in His grace showed all of us His mercy by sending His son, that whosoever calls on Him, God will show mercy. Homosexual and heterosexual alike.

  • bluecenterlight

    There are many logical reasons not to love people.

  • bluecenterlight

    So that is a yes?

  • jsboegl

    Moderators aren’t letting me post link to current Feb. edition of Christianity Today. Bluecenterlight, I refer you to read Rosaria’s article entitled: “My Train Wreck Conversion”. There’s hope for unbelievable freedom and rest as we yield to Jesus’ perspective on this, (and any subject). His peace to you.

  • bluecenterlight

    I guess it is just sad that that one place they can find that freedom is a place where they know they are hated. I guess that is why there needs to be a split in the evangelical community. There are those of us who have been Christians for a long time and still struggle with the same sins as when we first came to Christ. Some victory, some failure, but we have come to the realization that in spite of our sin, Christ has always been by at our sides not condemning us but encouraging us. We think it is in our honesty about our struggles, in community with other broken people, that we grow in Him. You will always see the need for the sinner to clean up his sin before they are accepted, and we are the come as you are crowd. You just can’t reconcile the two. If I am going to error, it will be on the side of grace.

  • http://www.facebook.com/otro.tierra Otro Tierra

    Paul never talked about gay marriage, Frank. Reading is important.

  • jsboegl

    Bluecenterlight, I am a great sinner. I need a great savior Who’s grace is greater than my sin. His truth and His grace are that real. Not that you should need it from “me”, but I bless His love for you and your obvious love for Him.

  • Jose Gonzales

    The problem is not with churches opposing homosexuality. The problem is with churches embracing the idea from secular society that sexuality is our primary identity marker and the purpose of our lives and then condemning homosexuality. So long as you accept the false notion that sexuality is our purpose, that “a man’s life consists in the abundance of sex that he has” then homosexuality will always be a side-effect. If people think that having sex “early and often” is the point of life, then normal boundary markers will break down. The boundary between the sexes, between legal age and under age, between human and animal — all breaks down when we think having sex sex sex sex is the point of life. The problem is too much emphasis being placed on sex by our society and the churches being dumb enough to go along with that. When less emphasis is placed on sexuality, you don’t have as many fornicators, of any type, whether heterosexual, homosexual, or bestial.

  • 22044

    It depends what you mean by rights. The understanding of natural rights is rooted in Scripture’s account of creation of mankind and who Adam and Eve were. Other kinds of rights, sure, there can be a discussion.

  • 22044

    Thanks. Great points.

  • http://snommelp.tumblr.com/ Snommelp

    …and as history clearly shows us, drunkenness being anathema means that nobody will ever get drunk. Oh wait… I think your gaping flaw just went recursive. Also, here are the words of the chief steward to the bridegroom: “Everyone serves the good wine first, and then the inferior wine after the guests have become drunk. But you have kept the good wine until now.” It certainly seems as though the steward is saying that guests are drunk – either that, or is commenting on the high alcohol tolerance of the guests.

  • http://snommelp.tumblr.com/ Snommelp

    Also, you are correct that Jesus was not compelled by the state. Instead, Jesus provided the wine of His own free choice, out of grace and love. And yet those who claim to follow Jesus apparently will not show the same grace and love unless forced by the state? It would seem that, if we were following after the example of Jesus, state involvement would be a non-issue – at least in cases like these.

  • bluecenterlight

    Exactly, the point of scripture is not that one group is sexually moral and the other is not, the point is we are all sexually broken. Whether we ogle at our neighbor in her bikini, or have sex with our spouse once every couple months, we all fall short of God’s sexual standard. To elevate someone else’s sin over our own is wrong. I agree we do not in the process just make everything “cool”, but we have made homosexuality the sin above all other sins, in essence the unforgivable sin. They know beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are hated by us. “God” has cursed them with AIDS, sent hurricanes to destroy cities because of them, they are the reason our marriages are failing, we compare them to pedophiles, and to those who commit beastiality. Is it possible that social prejudice has crept into our thinking? In my lifetime homosexuals were not even allowed on TV. In retrospect, is Ellen a reprobate “monster” destroying our society, or is she just like us, a decent, broken person in need of Christ. I’m not saying we redefine sin, I’m saying maybe we need to dial back the finger pointing, and be more up front and honest about our own. It is hard to find your identity in a God you are forbidden access to.

  • 22044

    Great points, the church needs to repent and focus on its identity as well, to welcome and love sexually broken people.

  • jsboegl

    God bless you brother, I’m not sure what translation you’re using… No way to infer that by making wine at Cana Jesus is saying “Hey, here’s some wine – let’s all get drunk!”
    And back to the point: That’s essentially what Starbuck is demanding Mr. Baker should have said: “Wonderful! You’re getting married! I’ll be happy to bake your wedding cake!” Maybe Ms. Starbuck would like to argue that Mr. Baker should cheerily make cakes for Nazi conventions and Istishhad?!

  • bluecenterlight

    Seeing as how homosexuals occupied the same space in German ovens, that remark is kind of offensive.

  • http://snommelp.tumblr.com/ Snommelp

    That one was NRSV. If you’d like another, I can give you another. They’re all the same: the steward/servant says to the bridegroom, “usually people serve the good wine first, and then when everyone’s had too much to drink, they switch to lesser stuff. But you have saved the best wine until now.” You are free to infer from that what you will – as clearly, you already are.

  • jsboegl

    Why? It’s the application of your moral principle simply applied in a consistent manner… What’s your moral absolute to declare a Nazi as worse in the eyes of God than a bisexual man? BTW there were also many Bible believers who were hiding Jews, Gypsies, retarded children and homosexuals who were put to death by the Nazis…

  • Jonathan Starkey

    Ohhhhh! Snap!

  • bluecenterlight

    All sin is essentially equal, it separates us from God. But there is a difference between stealing a library book and raping and beating a child to death. I don’t think you would claim those are equal. To equate someone who has homosexual desires to those who murdered millions of innocent people is not a fair comparison.

  • Frank

    That’s correct. He talked a lot about Gods created order for marriage, man-woman, husband-wife and how that mirrored Jesus and His church.

    He also talked a lot about homosexual behavior being a sin, no qualifications. Gay marriage existed so if it were ok he would have clarified. Same with Jesus.

    Paul knew exactly what he was saying. It’s not relevant whether you like what he said or not.

    Reading is important but also understanding what you read is even more important. You should work on that.

  • Frank

    Yes but we all need to admit that homosexual behavior is a broken sexual behavior. What some people seem to want to argue here is that homosexual behavior is not sexually broken but sexually normal and to be celebrated. It’s not so much the church is rejecting gay people ( although there is a history of this and a very small minority of churches still act in an unloving manner) it’s gay people who want to love they way they want and not admit their sin who reject the church. If you don’t think you need to be healed and you have people deceiving you that you don’t need to be healed, its hard for healing to take place.

  • 22044

    Right, let’s not err in the other direction, either.

  • daithi duly

    Couldn’t agree more Frank, we are at a cross roads and some have agendas, some are completely homophobic, while others want to pursue a sinful sexuality. We need to be loving but true to God’s Word.

  • Frank

    Yes to this.

  • http://snommelp.tumblr.com/ Snommelp

    You’re the first person I’ve heard even mentioning that particular theory, let alone endorsing it.

  • 22044

    Although the Gospel of John is synoptic, there is no reason to view the historical events recorded in that Gospel differently than the historical events recorded in the other Gospels.
    When Jesus told a parable, the text always introduces that fact, so there is no ambiguity there.

  • Jose Gonzales

    “All sin is essentially equal” — that’s crap. John talks about “a sin unto death and a sin not unto death.” And the Old Testament makes a clear distinction between regular sins and “abominations.” There is not ONE passage in the whole Bible that says every sin separates us from God. There is that passage in Isaiah were Isaiah says to the people of his day “your sinS (plural) have separated you from God” and from this you have twisted and contorted scripture to fit your preconceived agenda that all sin is equal when it clearly is not. If it were all equal, the Old Testament would not have punished some sins by death while punishing others only by fines and still some receiving no punishment at all.

  • Jose Gonzales

    “But there is a difference between stealing a library book and raping and
    beating a child to death. I don’t think you would claim those are equal.
    To equate someone who has homosexual desires to those who murdered
    millions of innocent people is not a fair comparison.”

    You are right. The comparison should be between the child rapist and the homosexual, not the murderer and the homosexual. Homosexuality is a perversion in which a person does not make distinctions between the sexes and therefore is less likely to make age distinctions or distinctions between willing and non-willing participants also. It is essentially a perversion that allows them to have sex with anything that moves.

  • http://snommelp.tumblr.com/ Snommelp

    Correction: this is the internet. It’s a global thing.

  • bluecenterlight

    I think you are right, we do think too much about sex. The world would be a lot less complicated without it. It would also be a lot less populated. Sex is just a natural desire placed in us by God, it’s just not a switch that most of us can turn off. You are right, things would be a lot easier if we could. But, I believe God created sexuality, and that we can have a Godly sexlife, even though the world has distorted, and done horrible things with it.

  • Ford1968

    Do you really think that being gay is exclusively about sex? Do you really think that people – gay or straight- generally wrap their self worth up in the number of sexual partners they’ve had? That is a profound misunderstanding of sexual orientation. And do you believe that sexuality is a gift from God and essential to the human condition? Or do you believe that sexuality is a curse to be endured, tamed, and denied? Sexual repression is not a hallmark of holiness. I’d argue it can be sinful and separate us from God.

  • 22044

    Correction: should read “the Gospel of John isn’t synoptic”.

  • Frank

    Reconciliation is not possible until we understand why we need to be reconciled.

×

TRENDING: It's Friday but Sunday's Coming! >>

Read previous post:
“Don’t Tell Anyone” – Jesus’ warning against always expressing right belief

BY: MICHAEL KIMPAN -- You are the Anointed One! You're the son of the living God, YHVH. The others leaned...

Close