Reading an op-ed by Nicholas Kristof titled, “Learning from the sin of Sodom,” I was reminded of the biblical passage, written by the prophet Ezekiel where the nation of Israel was judged by God. Here is the paragraph from Kristof:
In one striking passage, Stearns quotes the prophet Ezekiel as saying that the great sin of the people of Sodom wasn’t so much that they were promiscuous or gay as that they were “arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.” (Ezekiel 16:49.)
The Stearns he references is the CEO of World Vision, Richard Stearns, who last year published a book, The Hole in Our Gospel. The book calls Christians away from the culture war into a war on apathy and poverty. The passage in Ezekiel is well worth the read for evangelicals just sure that defeating homosexuality is the highest bullet point on God’s agenda.
Chapter 16 begins with a recitation of the sins of Israel with particular scorn for their idolatry and sacrifice of children. Then God through Ezekiel has an interesting commentary on the relationship between Israel and Sodom (Ezek. 16:46-48)
Your older sister was Samaria, who lived to the north of you with her daughters; and your younger sister, who lived to the south of you with her daughters, was Sodom. You not only walked in their ways and copied their detestable practices, but in all your ways you soon became more depraved than they. As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, your sister Sodom and her daughters never did what you and your daughters have done.
On the scale of sin, Israel tops Sodom. But what sins are we talking about? The next verse may surprise those who are calling for a ban on sodomy.
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. They were haughty and did detestable things before me.
The real sodomite is the arrogant person, the overfed and apathetic person who ignores the poor and others in need. The sexual sins of Sodom are second rate compared to the sins of pride and greed. Ban Sodomy, anyone?
Sodomy, vie
wed from God’s perspective, is practically the American way. I guess we have been exporting sodomy to Uganda.
The sins of Sodom mark the American church in ways that are very uncomfortable to confront. Defined biblically, I hope we can unite against sodomy. Defined biblically, we have all been sodomites, have we not?
Ezekiel goes on to put things in perspective and offers hope (Ezek. 16:52-53).
Bear your disgrace, for you have furnished some justification for your sisters. Because your sins were more vile than theirs, they appear more righteous than you. So then, be ashamed and bear your disgrace, for you have made your sisters appear righteous.” ‘However, I will restore the fortunes of Sodom and her daughters and of Samaria and her daughters, and your fortunes along with them.
We are all in this need-of-redemption thing together. Rather than pick out sins and sinners to protest, it appears we would do better to walk humbly, and take heed, lest we fall.
To be held to a higher standard. Okay.
LOL!
Do that. I take your “LOL’s” the very same way. 🙂
I didn’t need the reminder…was fully aware of that when I posted to his attention. Since your most recent posts to me were rather harsh in tone, I’ll take this latest one as a sarcastic jab and ignore the smiley face.
Careful Eddy, he might filter you. 🙂
Warren–
Please honor your most recent post and shut this puppy down. I was in the midst of drafting a comment when I saw your appeal for us to let it go and I scrapped my comment. I thought you meant all of us–Michael included.
I know you didn’t say ‘shut down’ but I hope that, at the least, you’ll put all new comments into moderation and decide if they are worthy of getting through.
God, I sure hope so!!! I think I know now why David used the words he did. I feel like I have been trying (for over a day now) to take off the “ugly clothes” of “liar, twister and game-player” or the “ugly clothes” that I believe that ALL fundamentalist Christians are homphobic, woman-hating racists. I deeply resent it. It is not true. It is not fair.
I am frustrated, angry, fed up. I stand by what I said as (1) TRUTHFUL, (2) that SOME of the negative opininion held by BOTH sides is EARNED and (3) that no one can “make you” wear something that is not true — no matter how hard they try.
I think this thread has gone on long enough on what Michael means and what he doesn’t. I don’t see much new coming out of it.
The leaders of Exodus probably need to deal with this directly. I don’t think they believe that a believing Christian who is homosexual miss heaven. But we can speculate all day. If someone wants to write and ask, that would be great. Otherwise can we move on?
I don’t know why you feel you have been going around in circles. My point has been OBVIOUS and REPETIVE — at least it seems that way to me. I don’t think people are “made to” wear the ugly clothes and SOME — SOME, SOME, SOME, SOME, SOME, SOME — of it IS deserved. Are you completely THICK or just trying to seem like it?
The quote is accurate. I have no reason to ask the reporter to change it. I would give him the same answer if he were in the room with you and me right now. He asked very specific question on how Alan Chambers and I differed — whether or not it was “mainly Biblical” — a question of the moralityof gay sex, not a question of orientation change. I said yes. I accurately described Exodus’s position on the sinfulness of gay sex. That was the focus of his question and of my answer.
He said, “They seem to admit that they don’t make people straight, but they think gay sex is sin — and you don’t right?” I said “Yes, they seem to be admitting that otientation does not change and I give the credit for being more honest about that.” I also said, “Yes, they believe that if you don’t repent of it that you are risking eternal damnation and I don’t ” No spin. No lie. Nothing inflammatory. It IS what Exodus believes. That’s what he asked, that’s how I answered. It’s TRUE and I stand by it.
Funny, I wanted to say that to you but felt that it would be ‘over the line’ and rude.
I was fine when you finally acknowledged that a portion of what David said was true. This latest side detour is simply explaining how the other mega-detour developed. You said ‘all you had to do was ask’ and I demonstrated all the efforts I made to say it clearly and how you responded.
But, I’m getting dizzy from going around in circles with you and need to head downstairs for a late lunch.
SOME OF ALL OF THAT HAS BEEN EARNED. How many times can I write the word SOME before you get that? You want try to argue that NONE of it is earned? Give it your best shot. Do SOME try to paint ALL Christians as being one or ALL of those things? Yes. Is that fair or true? NO. And I have never, ever — EVER –said otherwise. KNOCK IT OFF.
Then you should go back and ask for a correction because that is not how they quoted you. And you know it.
I believe we have another oversimplification here. Perhaps not. I suppose there are ‘some believers’ who insist that everyone who doesn’t believe ‘exactly as they do’ aren’t real Christians but I’ve always found some diversity re baptism, biblical inerrancy, certain behaviors (dancing, and all that), our role in the Great Commission, our responsibilities as Christians to other Christians, the way we relate to ‘the world’. I have trouble believing that ANY Christian would judge another be a non-Christian because they didn’t believe ‘exactly as they do’ in ALL of those areas. I’m thinking that if the statement were “Some believers have told me I can’t be a ‘real’ Christian unless I believe ‘exactly as they do’ regarding homosexuality“, then it would be much easier to accept without question.
SOME of THAT is earned too. Not just the homophobia. SOME of the characterization of fundamentalist Christians as racists and misogynists is ALSO earned. SOME — dammit — SOME. I stand by that. I think history supports it.
I did not “inflame my statements to sound good for the press.” I won’t “wear”that. He asked if I thought the major difference was Biblical — whether or not gay sex was sin. I said, yes. He asked where we differedm — where the major Biblical difference was.
I told him that Exodus believes that gay sex is always sin, I quoted a few of the passages that Exodus uses in support of that opinion and I correctly stated that Exodus believes that continuning to have gay sex puts the person at risk of Hell if they don’t repent of it.
I told him that I do not approach the Bible the same way they do and that I do not believe that gay sex is always sin. He already had Alan’s take on it. I gave him an accurate and honest answer on the question of gay sex as sin. For some reason, you seem bent on painting me as a liar. Knock it off.
AS Eddy confirmed, Exodus does believe the things I told the reporter. His article contained only a brief quote of a five minute conversation. The focus of his question was how we differed on gay sex as sin. I gave him a trutful, non-inflammatory response.
Unless you have a recording of the inteview, I would appreciate it if you would stop suggesting that I am lying, twisting or inflaming. Eddy agreed that I did state Exodus’s position on the matter of gay sex as sin. If Alan had been standing right there, I think even he would have told the reporter that I was stating it correctly.
LOL. All I had to was ask?
Michael Bussee ~ Mar 6, 2010 at 10:13 pm
Christian fundamentalism has been made to wear the ugly clothes of racism, misogyny and now homophobia. (quoting David)
I of course, disagree. I don’t think they were “made to”. I think they put one some of these clothes themselves.
Eddy ~ Mar 7, 2010 at 12:19 am
I of course disagree. I’ve seen enough examples on this blogsite to see that Christian fundamentalism has been grossly mischaracterized and it’s members judged not for who they are or what they say but by the stereotype. As with most stereotypes, you can always find an example or two to support your claim and conveniently overlook anything that doesn’t support the stereotype.
What is most frustrating, though, is that most of those who blog here who hold to Christian fundamentalist beliefs ARE NOT racist, misogynistic or homophobic…and yet we have to endure the verbal bashing continually. And oddly, the bashing comes from those who absolutely HATE being stereotyped themselves. Very, very curious.
Mary ~ Mar 7, 2010 at 12:30 am
Very curious.
Michael Bussee ~ Mar 7, 2010 at 1:51 am
It’s not bashing. I said “some”. Some of it, like it our not, is deserved.
So, I mention the charges of racism and misogyny by name…and I reference the bashing that fundies with respect to these charges…and Michael answers ‘It’s not bashing. I said “some”. Some of it, like it or not, is deserved.” Did he say anywhere that the charges of racism and misogyny didn’t fit in the same way that homophobia did? So when I went on and elaborated about the weirdness of presuming fundy women to be misogynist and belabored racism as well, let’s see if Michael addressed that.
Here’s what follows:
Michael Bussee ~ Mar 7, 2010 at 10:46 am
Eddy: You will insist that the hegative reputation is largely un-earned or over-stated. I will insist that it is not.
What negative reputation was I referring to? The one that included racism, misogyny and homphobia. I even cited the agenda of lumping the other two in with homophobia. But Michael still speaks to the entire negative reputation and doesn’t separate out homophobia. And so, I try again:
Eddy ~ Mar 7, 2010 at 10:54 am
Yup. Just that I’ll tend to back mine up with logic rather than feelings. (Please see my comments re those misogynist Christian fundamentalist women.)
This time I make a very brief comment and once again request that he ‘see my comments re those misogynist Christian fundamentalist women.’…just in case he missed what I was getting at.
Let’s see the response:
Michael Bussee ~ Mar 7, 2010 at 12:29 pm
David made a blanket statement that “Christian fundamentalism has been made to wear the ugly clothes of racism, misogyny and now homophobia”, implying that this negative reputation was completely undeserved. I disagree. Some of it, like it or not, has been earned.
And he’s still not addressing racism and misogyny separately from homophobia.
Yup. All I had to do was ask.
I know it must sound rather strange — even completely contradictory to some — that I consider myself to be a born-again, saved-by grace, evangelical Christian on one hand — and that on the other hand I don’t believe that everything in the Bible is the word-for-word, straight-from-God’s mouth, inerrant, infallible, literal truth.
It must be very confusing for those who do that the Bible is all those things.. Some believers have told me I can’t be a “real” Christian unless I believe exactly as they do. Even some gays who don’t believe in Christianity at all have told me I can’t bea “real Christian” if I don’t. But I won’t wear those clothes.
You might have qualified your statment when you were being quoted and added that the those at the LWO conference or Exodus don’t see being gay as a sin but the act of engaging in it as a sin – as well as many other societal norms are seen as sin.
You inflamed your statments to sound good for the press.
Yes, I am a Christian. But I am becoming more and more what one might call a “liberal Christian” I don’t think I believe in Hell in the same way that SOME other Christians do. I tend to think “hell” as a here-and-now experience of living a life without God, without love and without hope.
I don’t believe in a literal Hell and eternal torment, lakes of fire, unending pain, etc. I don’t know if I ever did. I find it hard to reconcile such an idea with my concept of God. Frank Worthen, Alan Chambers and others may think that it’s true. I don’t.
I also don’t think God really commanded the slaughter of babies, that non-virgin brides or adulterers should be stoned or that a woman who tries to help her husband by grabbing another man’s testicles should have her hand cut off without mercy.”
Some do. Christians differ on these things.
Isn’t that what you believe, too? Or are you not a Christian?
Now, I am done. For now. 🙂
If you had some doubt, you COULD have asked,
I would have said “No, of course not — and don’t try to pin that on me!” I very deliberately used the word “some” in my response to David because you and Mary have pointed out that without that word — without that VERY important qualifier — that my comments could be taken as generalizations that apply to ALL.
But I said SOME — and still caught hell for it. Damned if I do., Damned if I don’t. I spent hours now defending myself against the false accusations and implications that I do believe they are ALL racist, misogynistic homophobes. I think I understand now why David would say “made to wear: The efforts to “make me wear” those things has exhausted and frustrated me. So I wanted to quit — but I am still so angry about it that I chose not to.
That is correct. I wasn’t done. I thought I was done. I wanted to be done. Completely frustrated and wanted to quit.
I was half tempted to throw the computer out the window because I was tired of being accused of saying that ALL fundamentalist Christians were racist, woman-hating homophobes — something I NEVER said. NEVER.
I also NEVER said I as “dragged back in”. I came back voluntarily. MY CHOICE. No one “made me”. I decided I wasn’t done. You blame me for the detour by fixating on David’s figure of speech. I blame you and Mary for the detour by trying to imply that I believed all Christians were racist woman haters — or that all of them were haters and homophobes if they believed gay sex was sin. That is NOT my position and it NEVER was.
I think we BOTH bear some responsibility for this detour. After all is said and done (and I don’t think it ever will be no matter how much I wish it could be) I STILL object to it. I stand by the original comment. We are not “made to” wear dirty clothes and some of the disdain is earned.
Loving it! If I owned a car, I’d make it a bumper sticker! Think of how many people might ask you “What does that mean?” –and, in answering, you might already be engaged in the fight!!!
Mary, Talk about trying to “make someone wear dirty clothes”! You are doing it right now. I am not lying, twisting or playing games. I am being honest and serious with myself and with you.
You might find my views inflammatory, but I think I am pretty much (pardon the pun) a straight shooter. I didn’t twist anything I said to the reporter (as you insisted) and Eddy concurred that what I said was accurate. If I have been untruthful, please supply the evidence.
.
Yes, Michael, I did say that you left out a part of the whole truth but I did not imply that you were lying…in fact I defended your assessment…Exodus does speak of sin and hell. I explained the part of the whole truth that you don’t often speak of…speaking the judgement part of the message without the Gospel…because of it’s implications to the problem that you seem to lay squarely at our feet…the misperceptions that gays have of Christians. If you only speak of the judgement, then of course it comes across as hate. And, we’re all victims of sound bites. I have heard you, at times, speak of the more complete message that Exodus and others speak and I commend you for that. But I fall back to the ‘never’ speak of the judgement without coupling it with the promise of redemption. I don’t think well of that no matter who’s doing the talking.
And yes, I have left a few conversations and come back. Sometimes, I left only to be drug back in. Someone would post seriously twisting or misinterpreting words I’d spoken and I felt the need to straighten that out. Several times, my promise was that I wouldn’t continue to speak in the current vein and I tried to honor that…I came back to the conversation addressing some other point. This time, you didn’t say you were leaving the conversation…you said you were done with this detour. And then, before anyone else even said anything, you were right back in speaking to the detour. So, in that sense, you weren’t dragged back in…you simply weren’t done like you said you were.
And even this morning, the first part of my early post was directed to Mary…so I didn’t drag you back in there.
And the second part was a response to your words but you’ll notice that I agreed with you given your take on the word ‘made’. I did, however, once again reiterate my support and belief in what David said as well. I didn’t misquote you or misinterpret you. So, I didn’t drag you back in.
I did express my views as to why I felt you bore responsibililty for the detour…sticking to the rigid definition of ‘made’ and not responding to the essence of what David was saying. But, you accused me of responsibility for the detour, why would it be wrong of me to explain it from my POV? We both put our views out there, explain them as best we can, and allow others to judge our reasoning for themselves. Did you not consider that when you made deprecating remarks about me in your ‘I’m done with this detour’ statement that I’d likely respond? And that you would, in turn, feel compelled to respond to me?
I’ve had more than a few times when I’ve typed ‘I’m done with all of this’ and then deleted those words before posting because I knew deep down that I’d be right back in. “I’m done with this” when coupled with a negative remark towards someone is usually intended to give extra weight to the negative remarks. “The ‘whatever the negative thing is’ is SO offensive that I’m DONE!”
FIGHT TARERISM!
Where is Sempa in this discription?
Where is Exodus in this discription?
Where is BTB in this discription?
Where is TWO in this discription?
Where is NARTH in this discription?
Where are we?
@ MIchael,
No way you are a wimp.
Still would like a recovery group for TARES.
MIchael – He said and I will back this up that being gay is not the sin that acting out on it is the sin and not following God’s intention is sinful. You use inflamatory language and then expect the rest of us to mind our p’s and q’s.
I am a hypocrite and admit that. There are things in the bible that I follow more closely than other things.
But you Michael are just playing games with yourself and your words.
Believe me, having been the target of it myself — from both sides — I fully get that people use this tactic — mis-representing their opponents — as a political ploy to marginalize others and weaken the effect of their real message. And I object to it as strongly as you do. I just don’t want to give them any power by saying that they “made me wear” anything. Makes me sound wimpy.
I get it. You are using it as a figure of speech. I still don’t like it. We will have to leave it at that.
@ Michael,
In a public forum, with a public identity with political implications…these are all descriptors that your public identity was “made to wear.” It is one of the more corrosive arts of political debate.
It is not true of the clinical office…which presumes a collaborative, affiliative and respectful focus. Applying the values of the clinical office to the political world handcuffs well-meaning people with good intentions.
Secondly, and this is big politically: if I can get you to wrestle with the clothes I make you wear, I can change your message and weaken your effect.
To repeat:
1. There are fundamentalist Christians who are made to wear hateful attitudes by others in order to politically marginalize their views.
2. There are hateful people who dress up as Christians in order to use Christianity to marginalize others politically.
add
3. There are immature Christians, improperly taught, who believe becoming like Pharisees is what Christ wanted…who are preoccupied with the sins of others.
4. Jesus warned us about all of these people in the Kingdom of Heaven…like you He is angry about those who masquarade….
I suggest we create a program in the church similar to Exodus: Converting Tares into Wheat.
It is the Tares who are going to Burn….(if we are going to talk about hell).
Not a ploy. Not a lie. I just can’t seem to help myself. Gimme a break Eddy.
How many times have you done the VERY SAME THING? Have I EVER accused you of using a “ploy” or not telling the truth when you decided to re-enage with me? NOPE. I assumed you wanted to quit bickering with me and couldn’t resist the temptation.
You have also announced at times that you are DONE and have changed your mind. I would appreciate it if you would STOP accusing me of ploying or lying when I change mine.
Regarding “love and redemption” Exodus preaches it, but their refusal to officially denounce criminalization and forced “treatment” gives me some serious doubt about just how “loving” they really are.
I don’t agree that all homosexual behavior is sin, so I DO see the message that it will get you Hell if you don’t renounce it as “ANTI-gay” in that respect. The “PRO-gay” position is that it is not always sinful — just as straight sex is not always sinful. If Exodus taught that all straight sex was “sin” and would get you hell, I would call that an “ANTI-straight” belief.
This IS our basic disagreement — the sinfulness of gay sex. It always has been and I suspect that it always will be — just as I told the reporter when Mary accused me of twisting Exodus’s position. She implied that I was being less than truthful. You just did to. Don’t appreciate it.
Correction to my last post…Michael hadn’t yet posted his second response of the morning connected to the mega-detour that he is ‘done with’.
I was pondering while having my morning coffee. First, I knew without a doubt that Michael would respond despite having said that he was ‘done with this major detour’. My only problem with that is when you make a statement like “I’m done with this” and then proceed to post 3 times in the next hour and a half and then again bright and early in the morning, it does make that statement seem more like a conversational ploy than the truth.
If we can wrangle for umpteen comments about David’s use of the word ‘made’, we oughta be more conscious of what the word ‘done’ means. ‘Done’ means ‘finished’…”I’m outta here”…”It’s over”. In this usage, it seemed to be saying “it doesn’t matter what you say or do, I‘m not engaging anymore.” But somehow, it didn’t mean that. If we’re going to hang people for their word choices, let’s go across the board.
That said, I appreciated much of what Michael said. In my reflection, the thought that came to me is something I heard long long ago. “If you talk about the fires of Hell without mentioning the hope of the Gospel, the message is twisted and hateful.” This is true of Christian fundies; it’s true of Exodus AND it’s true of anyone else. I think that’s been my problem with some of Michael’s statements re sin and hell. He brings up the fact that Christians speak of sin and hell without mentioning the hope of the Gospel that they also speak. Then blames the fundies or Exodus for how gays, who don’t even have firsthand experience with the fundies or Exodus, for the negative image gays have of them. The responsibility for that negative image lies both with those fundies who only speak damnation AND with all others, including Michael, who convey the ‘sin’ and ‘hell’ part of the message without attaching the hope of redemption portion of the message.
It’s a conundrum to be sure. Since Michael believes that it isn’t a sin, then he doesn’t see it as needing redemption. It’s understandable why he wouldn’t speak to that part of the message BUT THEN, his portrayal of Exodus or the fundies (and, by extension to many, of Christianity) is dangerously lopsided…it portrays only the negative without portraying the love and redemption side that is behind their message. This is the part that I find counter-productive.
So when ‘they call it sin’ gets thrown into a list that includes ‘they think it’s a mental illness’, I cringe….on several levels. 1) It’s not the same ‘it’. They call homosexual behavior sin. The ‘it’ of ‘it’s a mental illness’ refers to something different that isn’t wholly defined. I know that that ‘it’ would also include temptation (the desire to do a behavior) and there are some other distinctions that I won’t labor. 2) the word ‘they’, while seeming to speak to the same people, doesn’t. I think they ALL call the behavior sin while only a few think ‘it’s a mental illness’. (and the other words that Michael tosses into the mix also have varying degrees of ‘how many of the ‘theys’ say or feel that.) …so the statements wind up being tainted…and, to whatever extent they are tainted, those that hear them are misled by them.
If I comment further, I hope I will be able to keep my comments brief…I’ve got some family and home concerns that have risen to the top of the priority pile again.
Today in history: March 10, 418 — Jews are excluded from public office in the Roman Empire. Anti-jewish?
Kicking jews out of the military? Opposing laws to end discrimination in housing and employment against Jews? Opposing equal civil rights for them? Supporting or staying silent about a proposal to jail or kill them? Focing them into “treatment”? Anti-Jewish?
What would it take to earn that label?
Yup. That is what I told the reporter. That is what Exodus stronlgy believes and teaches about those who “continue to engage in sin” — and they definitely teach that gay sex is sin. Eddy thinks so too. I did NOT mis-represent or “twist” that in any way. I TOLD THE TRUTH. The reporter asked if I thought the major difference had to do with our beliefs about sin and Hell as they relate to gay sex. I told him that I did.
I do not “equate them”. I never said that people who believe necessarily hate of fear gays. Some do. The ones who only think you will go to Hell if you keep it up SEE themselves as benevolently “PRO-gay” because they feel they are lovingly offering a “rescue”. They don’t hate or fear — they see themselves as rescuing the lost.
They see themsleves as “PRO-gay” in that sense. I never said that “equates” with hatred or fear of gays. But I DO see the belief that ALL gay sex is sin as as an “ANTI-gay attitude.” If they believed all straight sex was sin, I would see that as an “ANTI-straight” attitude.
Unlike them, I am PRO-gay in the sense that I believe that gay sex in the right context can be holy — just as I am PRO-straight sex in the right context can be. Sin is the intent, not the action.
I objected to it and still object to that “figure of speech” because of the implication that the scorn that many gays feel towards fundamentalist Christians is entirely unfair and un-earned. I think SOME of it is fair and earned. Does David? If he is saying that he is sick and tired of ALL or MOST fundamentalis Christians being accused ot being racist, women-hating homophobes, I get it.
That is unfair. Had he said that, I would have agreed with him — just as gays getting mighty tired of being sterotyped as being amoral, party hardy, sex pigs bent on destroying marrige, the family and civilixation as we know it. I made it clear from the beginning that I felt only SOME deserve the “dirty clothes” reputation.
Mary–
As a whole, Exodus does believe and say that Hell is the likely eternal reward for those who continue to engage in sin. I thought I alluded to that pretty clearly in the several posts where I spoke to why God sent His only son and ‘the eternal consequences’ for sin and again in the post where I cited my own reasons for wanting to communicate the gospel to Gays as well. I’m not sure how you missed that.
I have no problem whatsoever with Michael saying that. My trouble begins when he equates that belief with hatred of gays, homophobia or being anti-gay. I believe it is the absolute essence of the Christian faith that ‘all have sinned’ but that ‘God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son’ to rescue us from that sin and it’s consequences. Granted, there are misguided Christians that run short on the love part, but the presumption that you can’t acknowledge sin without being hateful, phobic or anti the individual is in conflict with the heart of the gospel message…’that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us’. That’s love. The fact that he came and dwelt among us, that sure ain’t phobia. And Christians, like most of the ones I’ve known through Exodus, are more closely aligned with that viewpoint than the hateful ones. That’s been my point in confronting the labels of ‘anti’, ‘hateful’ and ‘phobic’.
Michael said:
As to the first sentence, when Michael finally addressed my questions re the racist and misogynist charges, I understood him. Didn’t try to ‘make him wear’ those charges, was trying my damnedest to get him to say what he actually believed and to separate those charges from homophobia so that we evaluate all three. It took a long long time to get him to speak to what I was asking and I maintain that my asking for the clarification would have been a simple and answerable question quite in touch with the commentary…it was the refusal to answer it directly that became the major detour.
RE his ‘made to wear’ comments. I happen to agree with him AND I happen to agree with David. Given Michael’s take on what ‘made’ means, then his point is a valid one. But I also know what David was saying when he said ‘made to wear’. It’s a figure of speech. Michael put the accent on ‘made’ and then gave that word it’s strictest possible meaning…no one makes you do anything unless they have a gun to your head. David wasn’t using it in that sense; his sense was closer to when we say ‘you made so and so look like a fool’. What? Did you make the person put on a silly hat and dance on one foot? Did you MAKE the person do anything? No! You portrayed them as a fool by any number of social/conversation devices in the eyes of others. But I’ll maintain that in common idiomatic use, we’ll say ‘made them look like a fool’ far more often than we’ll say ‘portrayed them as a fool’.
Given that it was David’s statement to begin with, responsible discussion would be to try to ascertain what he was really saying and discuss the merits of that. Instead, even after it was explained better by David and elaborated on by a few others, Michael remained fixated on his rigid sense of ‘made’ and continued, by doing so, in obscuring the valid essence of David’s statement. For however much of the detour was spent discussing the rigid sense of ‘made’ rather than the idiomatic, the responsibility lies with the one person who held fast to the rigid definition while all others were able to grasp the idiomatic.
That said, I understand that Michael is ‘done with this major detour’–and–if that turns out to be true, I’m gladly done with it too.
It is interesting the assumptions we make about Jesus sayings when we lack the historical/cultural context. “Going the second mile”, turning the other cheek, to “give your cloak as well” are all passive-aggressive behaviors Jesus recommends to followers of the Way. Roman soldiers were allowed to require the locals to carry their heavy packs for a mile, but no more. They could receive a serious reprimand if the local was taken further.
I’ll gladly unpack the other parts, but the point is that this was NOT an act of personal sacrifice, rather an act of defiance – to go the second mile.
BTW, it’s also what the other founders, including me, used to teach:
It was part of why we created Exodus. We felt we were called to warn people of that fate — eternal sepatation from God, judgement, damnation, hell — and to offer a “way out” — an Exodus.
Unless you know something I don’t, it still is one of the reasons Exodus does what it does. To prevent that eternal torment. If they have changed their views, I have heard nothing about it. Perhaps they should announce the change in position.
I am not twisting words. What I told the reporter was my honest and accurate understanding of what Exodus teaches about what the Bible still says will happen if gays do not turn from their sin. Call Alan. I doubt he will contradict 1 Corinthians.
Yes, Mary. Alan told me PERSONALLY that it is Exodus’s position that gay sex is a great “EVIL”, that it is a very serious “sin”, that the Old Testament called for death for those who engaged in it — and that those who persist in gay sin “will not inherit the Kingdom of God”. The “due penalty”. Hell.
Although some fundamentalists might believe that you can keep on having gay sex and still get into Heaven, I have not met any. It is my belief that this is the opinion held by most who believe the Bible is the Word of God.
Fundamentalist Christians frequently cite OT and NT passages to support the view that unrepentant gays are risking hell if they don’t repent of it. Frank Worthen (one of the other founders of Exodus) wrote me a very detailed description of the torment that awaits me — a lake of fire.
If you have information that this is NOT the traditionally and commonly held view of fundamentalist Christians regarding unrepented gay sex, please show proof.
OK, not quite done. Here is a short list of some of the things that some people (here and elsewhere) have tried to “make me wear” lately.
(1) I am Anti-Christian.
(2) I claim that gays cannot change ANYTHING about their lives.
(3) That I believe ALL Christians are racist, woman-hating homophobes.
(4) That I believe ALL Christians are “anti-gay”.
(5) That I believe that anyonoe who believes gay sex is sin is against gays as people.
(6) That all Christians believe gays will go to hell.
(7) That I believe Christians should not have the right to say it is sin.
(8) That I want to destroy the family.
(9) That I am a lap-dog for Exodus, a traitor and “not really gay” because I post here
(10) That I am a liar
The list goes on and on. We are all accused of being things or believing things that are not true of us. People TRY to makes us wear these things. We are sometimes partly to blame to the negative impressions people have of us. We all can do a better job.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/mar/07/choice-of-homosexuality-focus-of-dueling-meetings/
Did they say that homosexuality is worthy of eternal damnation?
I am DONE with this major detour and I still blame Eddy and You for most of it. I never said that all fundamentalist Christians were racist, women-hating homophobes — even though you both tried mighty hard to “make me” wear that.
After all this senseless bickering, I STILL do not believe anyone of us is MADE to wear ANYTHING — in or out of the office — and that SOME of the negative impression we have of each other is EARNED. TIred of beating that horse. I maintain it is a TRUE and FAIR statement. DONE.
Agreed.
I see the word “wear” in quotes. If he is speaking metaphorically — in the sense that people TRY to paint them this way, I agree. If he means literally MADE, I say hogwash.
Yes. They are asked to prove they are not. I don’t see anything wrong with that.
I have no idea what he is saying here. I think the same thing applies OUTSIDE the office. People can’t make you wear something that is not true of you.
Again, I stronly object tot he words “make them wear”. Nothing that hs been said here changes my objection to that choice of words. PROVE THEM WRONG.
I don’t understand what you are asking Eddy. It is NOT double speak and they do not contradict each other. I consider the view that homosexual sex is sin ONE “anti-gay” position in a long list of anti-gay attitudes. The PRO-gay position would be that it is not sin. PRO.
Do I think that ONE belief ALONE makes a person some sort of hater or homophobe? No. Most members of my own family believe that gay sex and they are not. But that position, in my opinion, is a NON-PRO-GAY position — it’s the “ANTI” or AGAINST gay sex postion, NOT a PRO one. Why is this so hard for you?
Let’s use the example of dancing. SOME conservative Christians believe it is sin. That’s one “anti-dancer” attitude. If they also believed that you would go to hell if you kept on dancing, or that you should be fired, barred from housing, discriminated against legally, kicked out of the military for it, jailed or killed for it or forced into “therapy” to overcome it — yes — they could be, in my opinion, rightly be called anti-dancer. It’s a matter of degree and intent.
Ann, the POSTION that gayness is an ANTI-gay position. I am not saying that makes them hateful homophobes.That’s a matter of how much and to what degree they oppose the PRO-gay postions I listed — and to what extent they think the LAW should enforce those values on gays.The more they do, the more they are “ANTI-gay”. The Bill in Uganda and those who support it are anti-gay in the extreme.
That’s the way I use the word and I stand by it. If it hurts, maybe it should. Standing against those PRO-gay values is what makes gay people think that people who do oppose them are ANTI.
Michael: This is what David said…and your answer or response to him was your Pro-Gay is this…Pro-Gay is this…Pro-Gay is this…and to be the opposite of this is Anti-Gay. Now that I reconsider, I think I see the problem. You are responding but you are NOT being responsive. One word or sentence in what he says (or in what I say) will send you off on some spiffy verbal construction. (The 3 ‘Pro-Gay is’ paragraphs followed by the Anti-Gay conclusion). But we presume that you are responding to him when it’s actually more of a ‘free association rant’.
(I have numbered each statement for reasons that will be obvious in closing paragraph.)
David’s post is broken into five statements. I’d be interested in hearing your response, even if it’s a simply ‘I agree’ and a brief reason for your disagreement if you disagree, to each of the five statements. Your response sounded as if you rejected everything he said summarily. I’d like to know if that’s the case. (I think we’ve got a sense re statement four.)
Perhaps not but you do call them anti-gay as indicated on this thread. That hurts.
Just a few posts ago you said:
But in the post I was referring to…the one where you delineated what PRO-Gay was…you included in your first paragraph the notion of ‘sin’ and in the third paragraph the possible consequences of hell. And then said:
Please clarify this second quote that was in your response to David with what you are saying to me in the first quote…please remember that the post of mine that you are answering to is MY response to YOUR response to David. To me, it appears that you are either contradicting yourself or engaging in double-speak. However, I’ll concede that there may be some nuance of meaning that I’m somehow missing. That’s why I’d like you to carefully explain why or how the two statements don’t contradict each other.
I am strongly PRO — just in case anyone missed it.
I would consider some strongly pro-gay, some strongly anti gay and most somewhere in the middle. Our usual gang of five or so that continuously bicker about it? Middle somewhere.
Mary, If you doubt that this is the teaching of Exodus, call Alan or email him. That’s what I did.
So have I Warren, by gays and Christians alike — just this week. I know the feeling. I listed attitudes that I consdider PRO-gay. It is my opinion that they are. I agree that there are degrees and nuances, but what would you call the OPPOSITE set of values?
Not really, Ann. People hold views contrary to mine and I do not call them “coercive”. Ignorant, misinformed perhaps, but I don’t feel in any way “made” or “coerced” into wearing them. I would only use “made”, “constrained” or “coerced” if they tried to to actually force me to profess them under threat to my life, liberty or pursuit of happiness..
MAry: I have not seen the article in question, but I remember the interview. The reporter had just been at the Love Won Out conference and that he had also interviewed Alan Chambers.
He said that he noticed that Alan Chambers seemed to be in agreement that “ex-gays” do not necessarily become straight but are still “SSA”. I said that I got that same impression as well — and that I appreciated Exodus becoming more transparent about sexual orientation change.
He then said that he got the impression that our core dispute was Biblical. I said, that I thought that was true. I said that fundamentalist Christians believe that gayness is a sin worthy of death, that they quote the Bible to prove it — and that they believe that gays who persist in that sin are at risk of Hell if they persist.
THAT’s what I told the reporter. Did I mis-represent the fundamentalist Christian position on the sinfulness of gay sex? Isn’t that a fairly accurate description of the fundamentalist teaching regarding unrepentant gay sex? It certainly is Alan’s position. He told me personally.
The reporter asked me where Alan Chambers and I mainly disagreed. He asked if the disagreement, at its root, was primarily about what we believe the Bible teaches. I said YES.
Ok, and do you see how someone, if not many, would think this is coercive? Why is anyone obligated to endorse or support or encourage how another identifies, or lives or who they have sex with or how? Furthermore, I am going to be made to wear the clothes you have given me by calling me a name that doesn’t apply? The clothes do not fit me no matter how hard some in the gay community try to make them. How many times do I have to keep taking them off?
Eddy, I agree with you. God is not Anti-man for saying we all sin. IT’s true. We all sin. And I am not saying that simply believing that gay sex is sin makes a person an anti-gay homophobe. I just think it means the person holds a position that is not PRO-gay in the sense I described.
Whether or not that person is also a hate-mongering homophobe is a matter or degree and intent. Most people who believe it, I suspect, are NOT. My own family believes it and they are not. It would take MORE than that.
I don’t believe that GOD believes that gayness is sin. PEOPLE do. PEOPLE are “ANTI-gay” (in my opinion) to the extent and to the degree that they oppose the PRO-gay values I listed. If they mildly oppose them… If the strongly oppose them… I am talking about PEOPLE not God. I have no question in mhy mind that He is neither anti-gay or anti-human.
Search Love Won Out conference , San Diego. He correctly said here and in the article that Christians view gays as going to hell or being hell bent … or whatever it is he goes around saying. You will find it with minimal effort.
Seems Michael thought he could get away with spreading false statment and none of us knowing that he was doing that.
Michael said –
I haven’t been reading closely so I am sorry I have missed some of the nuance. However, my point was regarding the language of anti and pro gay. Those are discreet descriptors for a continuous construct. Just this week I have been called pro-gay by one group and anti-gay by another for the same stance on the same issue.
In any event, this week, I feel for gays in ways I haven’t in a long time. I will be commenting more on the recent attacks by Mission America and AFTAH but I will say now that I know better what kind of love gays have been getting from certain Christians.
Non-responsive!!!
I said in my example that God would be anti-man because he said that MAN has sinned. I did NOT say anti-gay. Don’t pretend to be refuting my statement when the words you refute aren’t even in my statement. FOUL!!!!
No wonder you keep missing the point…you even read words that aren’t there. Take all the leaps you want to but at least start with the words you pretend to be responding to.
Mary–
Yours is a good point, however, if you have seen Michael quote elsewhere as you’ve said, then it would kinda be up to you to bring those sources forward rather than Michael. Sure, if he submitted his comments elsewhere, then he ought to bring them forward but if other sources are quoting what he’s said here and you stumbled upon them, then it would be easier for you to retrace the steps that led you to that discovery than for Michael to search himself. (I’ll see what I can find with my own somewhat dismal search abilities.)
I stand by everything I have said in this thread. ALL of it.
Agreed,
The more of those “pro-gay” attitudes I listed and the more intensely that a person holds the OPPOSITE position to those “PRO-gay” values, the more I see them as being “ANTI” or “AGAINST”,
Some people ARE homophobic and ANTI-gay (to varying degrees) just as some people ARE anti-Semitic to varying degrees. Phelps would represent one extreme. Hitler would represent the other.
I fully recognize and accept that their are shades and nuances along that continuum from “mild” to “extreme”. I have said this REPEATEDLY and frankly get pissed off when some commenters here try to paint me otherwise. I will not wear those clothes.
If someone has already made up their mind about another, regardless of what is true or not, then it doesn’t matter – we do not see things as they are, we see things as how we are.
Warren, as I said, I do not consider it “black and white”. Prejudice runs from mild to extreme as I said.
PROVE IT.
Quote it Mary. Give me the reference where I said exactly what I said here.
Ann, Yes, I really meant what you highlighted.
That’s what I was trying to say. You said it much better.
Michael said:
The problem with these labels is that it makes attitudes toward gay people black or white – anti- or pro-gay. I think things must be more nuanced than that. Take this blog for instance. There are real shades of gray here. And compared with say Americans for Truth about Homosexuality, what would many people who comment here be labeled? I think the attitude is a continuous variable which requires continuous descriptors.
Michael – they wrote verbatim what you wrote here. You should maybe do your own research or at least know what you are saying to others.
Michael,
Do you really mean this?
Michael,
I understand. I know who I am and have peace in my heart about it. I do not wear clothes that are not mine. That I respond with resolve about this does not negate the fact that many others are trying to continuously take off the ill fitted clothes they never wanted or deserved but are continuously given.
BTW: I do not believe God has the attitudes I referred to or that He considers all gay sex sin, so I would not describe Him as anti-gay in that regard.
LOL!!! You have done this with me more times that I can count over the past few years. You do it just as often — just like you do in accussing me of “senseless bickering,” and “spin”. You don’t seem to have the gift of self-examination when it comes to this.
You often come across as just as sarasctic, stubborn and arrogant as you seem to think I am. And I am not the only one who knows you who holds this opinion of you. Of course, you can choose whether or not to wear it. LOL!!!
Give me a quote or two Mary and I will tell you if they quoted me accurately.
I am still “tripping on it” bacause you keep using it. Mary, give me an example from my postings elsewhere. Show me where I say ALL.
Nope. Not all black and white. ANTI-gay attitudes and ANTI-Christian attitudes exist along a spectrum from “mild to extreme”. The more you wear, the more people will tend to see you that way.
And yet, when we read outside articles in local papers of other cities we see Michael making the same claims about Conservative Christian as he has here and he does not qualitfy his statment or say “some” or any of that. He perpetuates the ongoing devisive (sp?) rhetoric that he so complains about.
And I blame the detour completely on you for reasons I’ve explained at least twice. David made a point and you tripped out on the word ‘made’…even after we thought the detour was over…you’re still tripping out on it and ignoring the truth that is in David’s point of view in favor of your own hang-ups over the definition of the word ‘made’.
David–
I believe that your latest post was very clear and articulate. (I would go so far as to say ‘inspired’.) I then read Michael’s rantings that followed and saw how he simply refuses to see any point there other than his own. Just wanted you to know that some of us get it. We hear what you’re saying. For a little while, I even had hopes that Michael would understand but I now concede that that is NOT going to happen. C’est la vie!
LOL. By Michael’s definition, God is anti-mankind. God says they have sinned. I was pretty sure that there was something about Him seeing them as sinners but loving them so much that He sent His son to redeem them…but that can’t be true by Michael’s definition….because you can’t be pro-man, if you call man a sinner. And if you’re not Pro, by Michael’s definition, that means you’re Anti. It’s all very black and white, don’t you see?
I would agree with point one if David had said, “That some insist on trying or unfairly attempt to dress all fundamentalist Christians in hateful clothing.” I agree that is self-evidently TRUE. Some do try. Many try to apply paint with broad-brush. And some TRY to do the VERY same things relaitve to gays. We refuse to wear them. You can too.
And I completely agree will point two as he worded it.
Eddy, I blame the “mega-detour” completely on you, when you began to state that I was insisting that all fundamentalist Christians were racist, misogynist homophobes — when I had NEVER, NEVER said such things.
David said they were “made to” wear these dirty clothes. I objected to what I saw as him playing a “victim card”. I made NONE of the sweeping generalizations that you or Mary accused me of. You tried to spin my comment to suggest that I DID. I cried FOUL.
I said,
That’s IT. And, after YOUR “mega-detour” and YOUR attempts to spin my comment, I STILL stand by it. No one “makes” them and “some” of it is deserved.
So? Big deal. I am called lots of things, but no one “makes me wear” them. I don’t care how many times you insist that you are “made to”, I will say that you are NOT. And I don’t care if Eddy calls it “compelling” you to, or “contraining” you to. It’s simply NOT true. You wear only what you choose to wear.
Heck, People call me “sinful”, “perverted”, the “child of my father, Satan”, “evil”, “anathema”, “traitor”, “murderer”, “a lap dog for Exodus”, “too soft on ex-gays”, “lower than pigs”, “sodmomite”. They say I have blood on my hands for helping to start Exodus — and a host of other names that are not true.. They can try to compel, constrain of MAKE ME wear those dirty clothes, but I will not wear them. And I would never, unlike you, say that they do.
PRO-gay. Attitudes and behaviors that affirm that gayness is a natural and morally neutral variant of human sexual orienation. That it is not broken, sinful, pathological or in any way inferior — morally, spiritually or psychologically — to heterosexuality.
PRO-gay. Attitudes and beliefs that gay people should have the very same rights and legal protections as heterosexuals. That they should be able to marry their gay partner. That they should be able to lie where they choose and work without fear of being fired for being gay. That they should be able to serve their country openly and proudly — just like straights.
PRO-gay. Attitudes and behaviors that affirm that gay people are not damaged and in need of repair and that they will not go to hell for loving and having sex with their consenting adult partner. That their private, consensual,adult behavior is not the business of government and should not be criminalized. That they should not be forced into therapy for it.
I call it the opposite of these positions “ANTI-gay” — AGAINST those values that most LGBT people hold dear.. You can call yourself something else if you like. But it doesn’t change the underlying attitude anymore than calling yourself “ex-gay” makes you straight.
Great! So why, when we are going that extra mile, should we be continually brow-beaten by another Christian for what others aren’t doing? It seems so damned counterproductive. We can’t make the progress we want to make here because we’re constantly being dragged back to square one…constantly having to answer for the homophobes…constantly having to defend our own statements because one of our words reminds someone of some other Christian’s homophobia or bigotry…constantly having to reword because someone decides to take major offense at a word choice. (I think back to ‘normalization’…a word that was used in several posts before I happened to use it and somehow sparked cries of ‘foul’ and a detour into ‘what is normal?’)
The English language is colorful but it has words that contain lots of nuance. I heard in David’s word ‘made’ exactly those things I mentioned in the latter half of the previous paragraph. When I’d like to move on in a conversation but someone jumps in and takes a bash at my peeps, isn’t that ‘making me’ answer for them. Time and time again, I’ve challenged that those people aren’t here. Those people aren’t commenting. The fact that those bashing statements come in response to one of the bloggers here who isn’t a homophobe or a bigot suggest the ‘making’…the compelling. “You say that but answer to this.” So, yes, in spirit, I do agree that no one can really make anyone do anything…but nothing in David’s words indicated that he was using the word so strongly. I read it more in the sense of ‘compel’ or ‘constrain’…”Many don’t deserve that label but you make them wear it anyway.”
And yes, I’m capable of more. But I’ve looked upon this blogsite as a proving ground. My gift is communication and bridge-building but my attempts at communication degenerate into senseless bickering and my pleas for bridge-building are met with extreme resistance and a declaration that only my side bears any responsibility for building that bridge. (Michael, it’s only been a few weeks since we had that conversation where you abdicated any responsibility for bridge-building since you no longer had any patience remaining for ‘those people’. Not exact words but I hope it triggers your memory of that conversation.)
And, just for the record, I’m going to reiterate David’s one point that got lost in our mega-detour before we forget that it’s been said.
It’s a different point than the one we centered on but, IMHO, it’s extremely valid and is another piece in the puzzle of misunderstanding.
People refuse to wear them here, Michael, and we are still called “anti-gay” by some.
Politics is about getting people to “wear” certain identities (even if they actively fight them off they can be made to “wear” them politically).
Sometimes, in an effort to get that distorted clothing off, they are asked to sign on to a range of assertions to prove they do not “wear” that clothing…concessions to “prove” they are not bigots, or homophobes.
As a psychologist, I am aware the theory that “no one” can make you do anything…it works well in the office.
As a political strategy…it can be quite effective, though, to make people of a certain group wear false assertions, and then buy their exoneration through capitulation to values and ideals that are at odds with their own.
I objected to the word “made”. I foolishly thought everyone here would agree that no one can be “made” to wear clothes that don’t fit them. And that we would agree that we all can do more to enoucourage our respective groups to wear clothes that do fit.
I never really expected such a controversy about that! Seems self-evident to me. No one can make you — and we call can do more.
What that “more” is depends first on our willingness to admit it. We all, me included, tend to think we are doing the bet we can. I think we are capable — that both camps are capable — of more.
Ann: I have never heard you have said any of these things and I do not think of you in that way. I would and will not say it about you. That said, I still object to the “made to wear” phrase. Some may try to put them on you, but you have refused to wear them. My point throughout this dicsussion is that no one can “make” you.
Yes, that is my point precisely. I could not have said it better. Yes. YES!!! Now I think you’ve got it. I think that all Christians are specifically called to go that extra mile. Good for Ann and good for you for the steps you say you have taken.
Good for gay Christians for what they are trying to do within the gay community to undo the work of those who voluntarily wear the dirty clothes. Good for them for trying to show that not all who believe that gay sex is “sin” are necessarliy all homophobic bigots. My hat is off to those on BOTH sides who try to wear cleaner clothes.
I’m not sure but I think what Ann is getting at is that the suggestion keeps being made that the Christians who aren’t guilty ‘need to do a better job’ of showing their colors…of showing how they are different. So, even when we’ve established that we’re not bashing all Christians, there’s still the suggestion that those of us here need to be doing something more…that we have some type of responsibility for this problem…that we need to walk some extra mile to show ourselves different.
But how does that translate? Ann’s ‘something more’ was finding this website and choosing to enter into the dialogues…another ‘something more’ was when she attended Jeffrey’s memorial…I’m sure there are lots of other ‘something more’s’ that we don’t know about. But what does that translate to in reality? It may have impressed Michael but has, in essence, had a zero effect on the perceptions of the gay community at large. It does make for some fine-sounding rhetoric but it simply doesn’t play out.
I’ve actively fought homophobia…and I do mean actively. The VFW where I sang karaoke in Minneapolis was barely gay tolerant when I first got there; but I’d confront that hypocrisy when it raised it’s head in my presence. By the time I moved away a year ago, the karaoke crowd was decidedly mixed and my best friend and his partner were part of the bar’s ‘in crowd’. Somehow I took a big dent out of homophobia but the church got no corresponding payback.
And like Ann, I’ve done other things to show quite vividly that ‘we’re not all like that’ but it seems to fall into some gigantic vacuum; the animosity towards Christians in general is as strong as its ever been.
A number of us regularly ‘come to table’ here at this blog, we dialogue as peers and co-equals, evaluating comments and ideas for their merits not out of the polarized positions that exist ‘out there’…but, alas, the only part that ever seems to get noticed is when we use the ‘sin’ word.
So, the oft given advice that we need to somehow ‘ramp it up’, that we need to do ‘something more’….it’s coming across as a platitude. It feels as if we are constantly being judged for not doing enough while we’re doing the best that we can and are engaged in some of the most unique, somewhat civil dialogues around that involve people from differing perspectives. Productive dialogues, when they occur, so often wind up with someone making a generalized jab at Christians or fundys…throwing all the weight of the discussion outside the room to this nameless, faceless horde that we are doing our best to impact. The tragedy is that the jab is often used simply to deflate the value of whatever point the commenter was trying to make.
If I missed the essence of what Ann was trying to get at. Please forgive me. And respond to her rather than to my ranting. My opinion is merely an opinion. Some will likely agree and others may tend to disagree.
Michael,
I have never, ever, ever said any of this and yet I have been made to wear the clothes you refer to. What am I doing wrong to be referred to as anti-gay, etc.?
David,
I’m glad that you posted your most recent comment. In all the wrangling that’s gone on in the past few days, I missed your second point entirely! (And, to my shame, may be have been a party to it getting lost.)
.
This is a group that we rarely talk about but I don’t believe we can deny their existence.
Michael,
I see this as an opportunity – please tell me (us) how to do a much better job.
@ Michael,
I am making two distinct points, Michael.
1. That some dress up fundamentalist Christians in hateful clothing
2. That some who are hateful dress up as Christians.
I cannot say it the way your prefer…
Time will tell whether the people you say are Fundamentalist Christians who hate will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven…
They are the Tares to me…
Can we all agree that it is as wrong to portray all (or even most) fundamentalist Christians as racist, misogynistic homophobes as it is to portray all gays as amoral, party hardy sleep-arounds with an “agenda” to destroy straight marriage and civilization as we know it?
Can we agree that some fundamentalist Christians and some gays have tried to do this? That they have tried to make the other group wear “ugly clothes” that do not always fit them? Can we also agree that some of the negative reputation (on both sides) is earned — and that neither group has done its very best to shrug off the ugly clothes?
Eddy and David echo my thoughts well on that James passage. For me, right now, that passage contains the two hardest things for me about about the Christian life:
* Reaching outside myself to care for others.
* Grappling with grace, and the corrosive effect of my own sin.
I mention James not to villify; he’s widely misinterpreted because of his bombastic language. It is an important step in the discipling of any believer to turn their attentions outward to the world, but I believe we have the prescription backwards: we are to turn our critiques inward, and our dispensations of grace outwards.
David, I agree. Wish you had said it that way fo begin with! I would have had no objection. Some dress up it Christianity as use and use it to support their hatred of women, gays and minorities. Those folks are not “made” to wear the “dirty clothes.” They put them on willingly.
Others may then make the mistaken assumption that the “dirty dressers” represent the whole group. They should not do this, but they do. Sometimes, they make this assumption about the “clean dressers” because they hear no firm rebuke from them. They take silence or equivocation as agreement.
Others, who may already have a generalized disdain for fundamentlists (or gays) may use the “dirty dressers” as proof of their prejudice. That of course is unfair. My point is if the “clean dressers” don’t want to feel that they are being “made to” wear these ditry clothes they could do a much better job of making it clear what kind of clothes they really do wear.
Eddy,
🙂 🙂 🙂
Ann–
Amen!
Actually, I was going to quote your question and then say something like ‘What’s that supposed to mean?’ or ‘Who are you talking about?’ But, as a joke, I’m thinking it would have fallen flat on it’s face. So, gonna stick with the Amen! ….and that’s my final answer.
I get weary of the assumptions and defending them.
sorry – meant to say I get weary of defending myself against them.
Amen. Also, another thing to ponder – wouldn’t there be less contention if individuals didn’t have to defend themselves against the assumptions made about them? I would think it would free up brain space and energy as well. I know this is true for me – I get weary of the assumptions and defending them.
Good points, David.
I was reflecting on the passage from James. I don’t think we have much of an issue anymore with ‘widows and orphans’ in our community needing help to survive…but globally still an issue.
Re keeping oneself from being polluted by the world. Some would consider ‘the hatred of gay people’ as the pollution while those of another belief would view ‘caving to the gay agenda’ as being polluted by the world. Same verse…different subjective interpretations. (And that’s only with respect to one issue…as we broaden the field of speculation to all sexual mores, or to other behaviors such as greed, gluttony, bearing false witness…we all somehow manage to tweak our interpretation according to personal bias or subjective experience.)
Late returning….
I would like to add, that the Devil quoted scripture…and he is not confused with Fundamentalists…clearly we know who he is…
I think we can do a similar evaluation of those who dress up in Christianity and use it to support their hatred of women, gays and minorities…
We don’t have to slander an entire group to do it.
I recall the parable Jesus told of the Kingdom of Heaven being like a field with wheat and tares; He states that we should wait for the harvest, when the tares shall be thrown into the fire…
There are tares in the church….
I can’t talk about the various sins of Sodom (and Israel, and frankly, us) without thinking of my current favorite James 1:27 passage (here from NIV):
Michael and Eddy,
I agree with both of you and I am going to start the ball rolling in my own life as that is the only one I really have any influence over.
I know it doesn’t happen often, but I completely agree with and appreciate Eddy’s comment.
I appreciate the thought about crossing ‘party’ lines (full pun intended). Sin or not, I’d like to get the message out to Christians and non, gay or straight, that sex is not a toy. If you still believe that it is, you are cheating yourself out of a deeper intimacy that is worth striving for.
Here is the difference. Heterosexual Christians can get legally married. Anything we do sexually is “acting out”.
Again, this cuts across conservative/liberal lines. SOME of the ugly clothes of “smug arrogance” are also earned.
Lest I appear sexist, I would also like to urge any “party-hardy sleep around women” to clean up their act too. 🙂
No, I don’t think you’ve “got it”. I would mind that. First of all, I would object to the use of the word “make” — just as I did when David used it. You can try to put some clothes on me, but you cannot make me wear any of them. I can wear whatever I choose to wear. Some wear these clothes by choice or do little to show otherwise, so some of the reputation is earned.
And as for the “party hardy sleep around” behavior you describing, I am fairly confident that you would agree that cuts across gay/straight lines. So do I think gay men deserve some of the disdain that fundamentalist Christians have towards them? Yes. So why not tell them to “clean up their act”? Happy to. But, I can only tell gays to if I tell the rest of them. It seems male. Yeah, I think we should “go there”. So here goes:
Ooops – hear you! LOL!!!! I must still have a fever!
Yeah – I here you, concerned. I here you.
Mary,
I would also like to add that there are some of us that have been hurt badly by Liberals who think they have it all figured out and deserve to rule the world. I got news for them, nobody has it figured out on this side of heaven. I have often seen smug arrogance on the part of some liberal thinking people in and outside of the church, who seem to think they do not have to listen to anyone elses point of view, but boy we sure have to listen to what they have to push on us.
I know – I get tired of the constant barage of how bad conservative christians are in Michael’s eyes that – I’m just tired and bored with his rants.
A lot of people have been hurt by Christians that were not showing a Christian love. We are all on the mend. Let’s grow and move on.
And guess what Michael – some people will expect Christians not to act out on their sexuality. Surprise!
Got it. Then of course you won’t mind if I change my tune and MAKE you wear the label of a party hardy sleep around gay. I’ve got lots and lots of real life examples of gays who are that way–even Christian ones. Please don’t protest. Tell them to clean up their act.
Here on the blog, please don’t be offended when I start to bring them into every discussion. I don’t really know whether they are the minority or the majority but that doesn’t matter…in a small city such as mine, I could probably find you 100 examples by the end of the weekend. In a bigger city, perhaps 200 or 300.
When you want to discuss gay marriage, wham! I’ll bring up the ‘sleep arounds’. When you want to discuss rights, blamo! I’ll bring up the ‘sleep arounds’. I’ll expect you to answer to them and for them every time.
Because they exist…and they bring shame upon your cause…and, if you’re seeking a sense of legitimacy and full acceptance, then surely you should feel responsibility for their reckless behavior…surely you should take some responsibility for changing them.
Did I get that right? Did I echo your defense of your posture accurately?
Someone from your POV: “Homosexuals have been made to wear the ugly labels of being promiscuous, anti-morality and anti-God .”
Me: “I disagree! They haven’t been MADE to wear those labels; they deserve them. They sleep around. How many examples do I have to give you to show that they do? Here’s a list of promiscuous gay websites and blogs where they spoken out against moral values and against God. Oh, and a picture of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence. What more proof do you need?”
The person from your POV: “But I’m a Christian in a committed relationship and I know many, many more like me.”
Me: “Sorry, but that doesn’t change my opinion. I’ve seen the parades; I’ve seen the pictures; I’ve heard the snide anti-Christian remarks in the TV sitcoms. I’ve got a list of offenses. If you want me to stop making that allegation, then you need to take it up with them. You need to tell them to clean up their act.”
Shall we go there? If not, please demonstrate how that is NOT a pretty close parallel to the posture you’re defending.
I got that point and I still disagree with it. It’s still the responsibility-evading word “made” that still stops me cold and then angers me.
You think I push too much of the responsibility for their “dirty clothes” reputation on the fundamentalists themselves. And I think they they keep pushing too much that responsibilty away from themselves..
The truth is usually somewhere in the middle.
Michael–
It appears to me that you reacted to David’s oversimplification with oversimplification (or, more accurately, a generalization) of your own. If you had called it an ‘oversimplification’ and pointed out that you agreed with it in part but that it was oversimplified…this whole detour wouldn’t have even started. Instead you simply said “I disagree”. I see that now you’ve bolded the word ‘some’; it was not qualifying the word ‘they’ that was the generalization that led to the troubles. David’s point is true that there are people who by virtue of being Christian fundamentalists are MADE to wear those labels that don’t rightly fit them. And–your point is true, that some of them deserve it. Why you chose to respond to an oversimplification with an oversimplification (or generalization) baffles me still.
And then, when the detour did start, if you had actually responded to what I was very clearly asking rather than skimming over my main points and direct questions while addressing your comments to me (thereby pretending that you were actually responding to what I was saying), the detour would have ended sooner. (I was addressing clearly what part of your statement was oversimplified and you simply didn’t answer to it.) Whose fault is that???
At long last, several posts ago, you actually addressed what I’d been asking since the beginning. And, since you actually addressed it and answered it, I now have the clarification that I was seeking when the detour began. I’m sorry that I thought you were answering my actual questions re racism and misogyny earlier when, in fact, you weren’t. But, the rest of the FOUL…for oversimplification, generalization, and non-responsive replies lies, at least in part, with you.
This was my original post on this matter and I stand by it.
That statement — that SOME of it is deserved — resulted in all sorts of false accusations and by you and Mary that I had “”insisted” that it was ALL deserved or that fundamenttalist Christians were to blame for ALL racism, misogyny or homophobia, or that ALL of them were hateful bigots.
I never said it. I don’t believe it. And I object to any mis-characterization of my comments that would suggest otherwise. FOUL.
The MAIN point I was trying to make — and which you, David and Mary seemed to stubbornly determined NOT to acknowledge, is that fundamentalist Christians are not “made to wear” the “ugly clothes”. SOME — I repeat SOME of that impression is completely voluntary and well-earned.
I objected to his statement because I thought it was an oversimplification of why so many gays — or others — have such negative impressions about fundamentalist Chistians. It seemed to say, “poor me”.
It played the victim, blamed the real victims and avoided any responsibility for the perception. I still object to what he said. If fundamentalist Christians don’t like it or think it’s completely unfair, they can and should do more to change it.
Some of my own friends and family think it is — and they are not.
No. You can believe that gay sex is sin without being a hateful, homophobic bigot.
But it seems to make your bigotry/homophobia list. I just labored to explain what I saw that distinguished it from either label. Do you see that? Do you accept that? Or is it your opinion that all those who speak that it is sin are worthy of one or both of the labels?
I have ZERO agreement with it. I can hold my nose and “tolerate” that they believe it and they have every right to express it. You can believe that gays will go to hell if they keep having gay relationships — and I have every right to say I think it’s a bunch of destructive BS.
I never said that you have the “right to say it from the pulpit but that we ought not to speak it out in the real world”. By all means, speak it all you want, anywhere you want, any time you want. I am not going to change your mind by objecting to that belief and you aren’t going to change my mind that such a teaching is evil.
Michael,
A touch of irony…I’ve been out for the past hour and a half. I came back and read Mary’s post railing at you for suggesting that Christian fundies were racist and misogynistic…and I made note to comment to her that you had since cleared that up. Then I read up the line and I see you accusing me of being foolish. The only thing foolish in my thinking was presuming that you’d actually been answering to my clear words (specifically citing ‘racism’ and ‘misogyny’ in at least 4 posts) rather than to the voices in your head. Believe me, I’ll try not to make that mistake again. Although it’s customary in a conversation between intelligent adults that they actually respond to the WORDS that the other person speaks or writes, I now realize that that is FOOLISH.
You suggest the word ‘bigotry’ might be a closer description of what you’re attacking. I agree. But when I made my distinction between Christian fundies who are homophobic and other Christian fundies who simply happen to believe it’s sin…the bigotry label (and the clothes it comes with) goes to the homophobes and not the other Christian fundies who dare to believe that it is sinful but don’t have ‘fear and unreasoned antipathy’ towards homosexuals.
You may try to apply the label ‘bigots’ to them:
but please realize that if you do, you are labeling yourself as a bigot as well.
A number of us are so tolerant that we concede that, although we believe homosexual behavior is sin, we believe that God looks on the heart and things may not be as black and white as they seem. That may not be enough for you (if it is, cool) but it is not ‘complete intolerance’. You express tolerance for the beliefs of others…’if they believe it’s wrong for them, I have no problem with that’…but that belief is coupled with other beliefs that you appear to have no tolerance for. In your list of fundamentalist offenses–something that appears EVERY time you list them–is their expressing their belief in the eternal penalty for unrepented sin. You appear to have zero tolerance for that belief or the expression of it.
I had some ultra-fundy friends and neighbors in my younger days. They believed that card playing, gambling and going to movies were sin and that continuing to engage in these activities would put you on the road to Hell. They spoke it; I heard it. However, I didn’t believe it. Sometimes I shook my head over what I perceived as their rigidity but, for the most part, we got along. I later learned that these things are actually spelled out in their church doctrines and were occasionally addressed from the pulpit.
You may protest that we have the right to say it from the pulpit but that we ought not to speak it ‘out in the real world’. I counter, “Why not?” Other voices are declaring boldly their religious viewpoint that it isn’t sin; it would be irresponsible of us as Christians, to leave that viewpoint unchallenged. Yeah, it’s a tough road. I first became a minister because I ‘wanted homosexuals to have the same right to hear the gospel as any other sinner’. (yes, I said the ‘s’ word again). My motivation was one of understanding and compassion for a group of people who I felt the church was either ignoring or bashing. The gospel message is that we have a Savior who rescued us from the bondage of sin. I daresay that even if I didn’t bring up the issue of homosexual behavior to a homosexually-identified unbeliever with whom I was sharing the gospel, they would. It’s what I did with the evangelist who led me to Christ and I’ve heard it’s a pretty typical response.
I’m not as rigid as I once was, though. While I do tell them that I personally believe that its sin and share the reasons behind my beliefs; I also let them know that it is an issue where the church is divided…with many believing that it is an inborn and God-given orientation.
That said, I won’t accept the label ‘homophobe’ or ‘bigot’ for myself or for other ‘Christian fundamentalists’ who have a similar degree of tolerance. I don’t think that’s where you were going with the comment re ‘bigotry’ but I wanted to clarify the distinctions since so many seem to have a narrow and somewhat bigoted view of ‘fundys’.
I agree. I have a much higher opinion of these folks. If you don’t believe in dancing, don’t dance.
But if you want to don’t want to “wear the clothes”, don’t go against good advice and carelessly drop matches in a country that wants to hang or imprison dancers. Don’t support or stay silent about a bill that would. Don’t belong to or support organizations and leaders here in the USA who support it.
Don’t refuse to adopt official policies against criminalization and forced “treatment” of dancers.. Don’t opposed hate crime penalties for those who beat or kill dancers just because they like to dance.
Don’t oppose legal protections in housing and employment for dancers , or oppose the elimination of anti-dance laws in the USA or elsewhere. Don’t kick good soldiers out of the military if they disclose that they like to dance.
And don’t tell kids that they are sick, broken or in need of repair if they like to dance.
Neither set of individuals really supports the endeavors of this community, just one might be hypocritical about it.
just want to clarify that in the above sentence, I am referring to the kind of person who would be like Fred Phelps or the hypocrite who purports to be a supporter but does not mean it.
Eddy,
I was being sarcastic as well. I guess I am getting so tired of people or even organizations creating labels that they can then impose of large groups of people as a means to shut them down. I agree with you. We need to create an atmosphere of openness. That can only be done when both sides show a willingness to listen to what the other side has to say without preconception of what they mean.
ok, I just re-read the list – I understand. It has also been my experienc that while a person might say they endorse and support the gay community, they do not. They say what others want to hear. This shocked and saddened me on many levels. That is another reason why I don’t think Christians should be singled out. Neither set of individuals really supports the endeavors of this community, just one might be hypocritical about it. It is disheartening to see them believed. Then there are some who, while they might not encourage or endorse same gender relationships based on their own morals or values or faith, do not pass judgement on others or interfere with their equal rights as fellow human beings.
Right now, in my life, I would rather look for the similarities and commonalities to our faith than to look for all the devicive issues. Haven’t we had enough?
Ah, I wish they would just “burn themselves out”, but that sort of evil and stupidity — if not activlely confronted and exposed, tends to be contagious. We cannot stand by and hope while the fire keeps claiming victims.
To extinguish racism, misogyny and homophobia, we need more fundamentalist Christian “fire-fighters” on the front lines — like those who opposed slavery or who are activley trying to stamp out the fire in Uganda.
Those who don’t “use the Bible and Jesus as justification for actions that are unlike anything Jesus would do” need to burn even more brightly. Use the Bible and Jesus rightly. Put the lamp on the lampstand. The world — rightly or wrongly — tends to see the arsonists.
Right on!
p.s. – when the Bible and Jesus are used as justification for actions that are unlike anything Jesus would do, doesn’t that make the person saying it look foolish? Let them burn themselves out.
I am referring to the sorts or people who did/do the things I listed. I do not know you’re theology, but I doubt you support any of the examples I have given.
Ok, when you refer to a fundamentalist Christian, are you referring to people like Fred Phelps? I think the Amish could also be called fundamental Christians. Where can we distinguish them with when communicating? Does anyone here think I am a fundamental Christian? Why or why not?
I intend to do some research this week on fundmentalist Christian leaders and organizations that have been at the forefront of the battle against racism, misogyny and homophobia. I am sure there must be some and I want to be sure I give then proper credit for their efforts.
In light of the “ugly clothes” worn by some of their peers — whether they donned them voluntarily or were “made to” wear them — they deserve all the positive publicity they can get. Think of it as a make-over. 🙂
I think that part of the answer is that fundamentalist Christians who have done the things I mention have given “Jesus” and the “Bible” as justification for their actions. That is why I objected to David saying that fundamentalist Christians were “made to wear” the clothes.
Do others have a similar wardrobe? Sure? But, I hold Christians to a higher lievel of responsibility since I think they have a duty, as ambassadors of Christ, to wear cleaner clothes.
Ok, I know there have been injuries that have not healed – I wish I could take any of this away and put it on myself instead to alleviate the pain – my question is why are the people involved with Christianity, in any form, being targeted and not others without this religious affiliation? I have been negatively affected by many members of the gay community and yet do not hold the gay community responsible for their individual behaviors.
Mary, ONCE AGAIN, I never, NEVER said they were. Why do you DELIBERATELY mis-represent me by stating or implying that I have blamed them for everything “racist, misogynistic or otherwise?” Are you being foolish like Eddy?
David said they were “made to wear” their reputation as “homophobic”. I said that much of the animosity that gays feel towards fundamentalist Christians is earned — and I gave a lengthy list of examples to back it up. Who does these things? Liberals?
It would be interesting to know what Jesus thinks about how the simple and humble way way he taught is now being embellished by various groups of people to advance their way of thinking. Being a Christian has now evolved into subsets – fundamental, conservative, liberal, methodist, catholic, baptist, mormon, etc., etc. etc. Does our desire to be unique warrant the compromising of an established set of religious teachings?
Yup. Pretty damn foolish. You should have asked, “Do you think most fundmenatlist Christians are racists and misogynists?” I would have said, “Of course not, don’t be a fool“.
On “homophobia”, I don’t think that simply believing gay sex is sin is “homophobic”. You can think that gay sex will result in in eternal damnation and not be “afraid” of gay sex or gays. I think it’s a misguided and destructive belief, but not necessarily an indication of “fear”. Some fundamentalist Christians think dancing is sin, but I wouldn’t call them “dance-phobic”.
We need a different word for it. I really don’t like the term “homophobic” when it comes to describing the things I listed. It’s something stronger that fear. I think it’s more akin to bigotry. Liberal Christians don’t do these things. They wear different clothes.
And yes, that last sentence is sarcasm.
Well Michael, according to some christians are wrong. But we are not to blame for everything racist, misogynistic or otherwise. And guess what, varying christian denominations and sects have concerns that other christians are doing it “right” and it has nothing to do with gays, women, race etc… Seems only your brand of thinking is correct.
concerned–
I disagree. The term ‘fundamentalist’ already has dictionary definitions…and then common usage has flavored those. Associating the word with ‘atheist’ doesn’t seem to enhance communication but seems like an intent to inject a politically charged flavor into the word. Some of us are in a war to CLARIFY the meaning of words and terms rather than muddy them further. I happen to believe this is essential to these dialogues.
No doubt about it Michael. There is a major difference between ‘liberals’ and ‘fundamentalists’. No doubt it, the liberals would not have gotten involved. Where the doubt comes in is whether all fundamentalist response that views homosexual behavior as a sin is properly labeled ‘homophobic’. (see my comments above re ‘fear and unreasoned antipathy’.)
Eddy,
“Atheist fundamentalist” is someone who puts atheism above all other belief systems.
Really there is no such term yet but I think if we can create it and it sticks then we have a new pigeon hole that we can use to generallize people with. Isn’t that the way this game works. If not I guess I am just out to lunch.
When I kept repeating those very words ‘racist’ and ‘misogynist’ and you kept beating the homophobic drum even though that wasn’t part of my comments, you were a major part of our misunderstanding. Foolishly, I actually assumed you were responding to what I said rather than to something I purposely left out because I wanted the response on the other two charges. So, yes, I did misunderstand you and I did challenge what I thought was your insistence. If it makes you feel better, brand it as an all caps, flat-out LIE. I’ll choose to see it in context.
Hmmm. Maybe it’s time for a new word ‘ChristaFundaPhobic’ to describe the fear and unreasoned antipathy that many feel towards Christian fundies. And, like homophobia, we’ll need to sort out those who have a reasoned antipathy versus those whose antipathy is unreasoned…and versus those whose antipathy is, in essence, reasoned but only because their sources aren’t.
I strongly maintain that if Liberal Christians did these things, gays wouldn’t like their “clothes” either. No one “made” fundamentalist Christians put these clothes on. Many seem to wear them quite proudly.
Concerned,
Very well said – IMHO – thank you.
The three Christian men who went to Uganda against good advice and carelessly dropped matches.
Liberals?
The apparent majority of Christian Ugandans who support the Bill. Liberals? The Christian organizations and leaders here in the USA who support it.
Liberals?
The Christian organization that claims to love the LGBT community but still stubbornly refuses to adopt official policies against criminalization and forced “treatment”.
Liberals?
Christian leaders/prganizations who opposed hate crime laws, Christian leaders/organizations who opposed legal protections in housing and employment, Christian leaders/organizations that opposed the elimination of sodomy laws in the USA.
Liberals?
Christian leaders/organizations who oppose the repeal of DADT, Christian leaders/organizations that teach that homosexuality is a disorder of some kind that can and should be “repaired”.
Liberals?
I undestand now. I should have made that VERY clear. I do not believe and did not iintend to imply that all or most fundamentalist Christians are racist or woman-hating. I have NEVER believed this, I do not believe it now — and you saying that I “insist” that they are is a flat-out LIE.
That said, I believe that that strong, generalized antipathy that many gays feel towards conservative, fundamentalist Chistians’ attitudes and actions towards the LGBT community is VERY well-deserved. They were not “made to wear” the clothes. They volunatarily put them on by doing the things I listed.
concerned–
What on earth is an ‘atheist fundamentalist’?
LOL. Sorry…I’ve been laboring to move beyond unclear words and ambiguous speech and then you toss that new term into the mix…just as I’m trying to sort out the vague usage of ‘fundamentalist’ when it’s coupled with ‘Christian’.
Eddy,
Are there Christian fundamentalists who are homophobic? DEFINITELY.
I would have to suggest that there are atheist fundamentalists who are homophobic and heterophobic, but we very rarely focus on their shortcomings like we do on Christians. I do not know how many times I hear people apologise by saying “not that there is anything wrong with homosexuality” while gritting their teeth in distain simply because it is not politically correct to say what is really on their minds. Their are some on this sight that may learn a great deal about others true feelings by simply keeping theire own views to themselves in a conversation. I know that I have tried this and it has largely been by learning not to judge what people are saying, but rather by observing what it is that they are doing that is most revealing.
I wish I could speak for everyone who has been affected, however, I will only speak for myself for right now – I purposely came to this blog without identifying any personal information because I wanted to discuss the subjects, not myself. As soon as I started to ask questions, the assumptions and contempt from those who are advocates started. So did the name calling. Fortunately those who did this do not drop by to post so much anymore. My position has always been – be anything you want to be but don’t be rude. That one has happily identified themselves as gay does not give them carte blanche to make assumptions or lie about those who do not feel the same way. I have never been concerned about those people who say they are happy and content and doing just what they want – my concern has been with those who struggle with feelings they never wanted and they consider an interference to living a life they otherwise value. Christians have and continue to be the most kind, patient, loving religion in the entire world and, for that, I am afraid they take the unfair criticism directed at them by turning the other cheek or trying harder to demonstrate their patience with those who are continually throwing stones at them. Contrary to popular belief, the ongoing contention is not so much anymore about one being gay, rather, it is the unwillingness to have sustained and civil discussion with or acceptance of others who have a different perspective for themselves on how to respond to it.
1) I didn’t say you said this…I said it of you.
2) When you said you disagreed with David’s statement, you didn’t say ‘Well, I think the part about homophobia fits but probably not the other two.’
3) When I isolated the other two, the racism and misogyny, you continued to disagree and have yet to concede that Christian fundamentalists are NOT, in general, racist and misogynistic.
So, I purposely limit my comments rather specifically to racism and misogyny and you, in turn, pretend to be responding to me but purposely don’t speak to racism and misogyny–the things I’m talking about and asking about. Gee, I wonder how I could have possibly misunderstood you.
LOL! I entered the conversation asking my questions re racism and misogyny…in the previous quote you indicate that you never spoke to them. Wouldn’t that indicate that my question went unanswered longer? Wouldn’t that suggest that you have dodged my direct questions that preceded yours?
1) yes, they maintain that any sin–if not repented of–(I, personally alluded to adultery, fornication and lying in one of my posts) places the person at risk of eternal damnation. At one time, it was a core belief of Christianity. God created Man to be in fellowship with him; Satan persuaded man to sin; God promised a redeemer to buy man back from the wages of sin; Christ is that redeemer. Hmmm…I bet that’s why they call it ‘fundamental’.
So, was the purpose for God sending his only begotten Son into the world to buy mankind back from sin? Do we agree on that fundamental? Is our only debate whether homosexual behavior is one of those sins? (I alluded early on, perhaps even in another recent thread, that even the definition of ‘Christian fundamentalist’ isn’t very specific…sometimes I think that, for many, if you are a Christian who believes in sin, then you are fundamentalist…for many others, it’s if you believe that certain behaviors are sin i.e. homosexual behavior, then you are a fundamentalist.
2) So, yes, they do think so. And why do they bring up those passages? Because those are the passages that strongly appear to say so. Why do they bring them up so often? Because unlike adultery, fornication, lying, cheating, stealing, etc., there is no counter-movement to say that these things are not sin.
3) Does calling these things ‘sin’ make a person ‘phobic’ in respect to them? I recall asking that rather directly also. You seem to be indicating that believing that homosexual behavior is sin makes a person homophobic. I believe that adultery and fornication are sin and yet no one has as yet charged that I am ‘phobic’ about them. Can we recognize the accepted definition of homphobia? that it’s a fear and unreasoning antipathy for homosexuals?
Granted, Christian fundamentalists have an antipathy for homosexual behavior. That, in itself, is NOT homophobia. Is their aversion ‘unreasoning’? It would seem that when they can point to the Bible, the foundational book of their faith, and the words it uses, then their aversion is not ‘unreasoning’. One of the basic premises of Christianity is to develop an aversion to sin and to aspire to holiness.
Are there Christian fundamentalists who are homophobic? DEFINITELY. There are those who supercharge the Bible message, thriving on the words ‘abomination’ when it applies to homosexuality but overlooking that word when it applies to lying lips. There are those who see a listing of sins where homosexual behaviors are smack dab in the middle of the list but somehow they single out homosexual behavior as especially evil. This thinking is ‘unreasoning’ and, therefore, homophobic.
But those who simply view it as a sin among many sins that plague mankind? Is it homophobic to say that? Is it ‘fear or unreasoning antipathy’ to believe that the Bible calls homosexual behavior sin and to encourage others to leave that sin behind. You may disagree with their POV but it isn’t ‘fear or unreasoning antipathy’.
Do many, many gays misunderstand this? DEFINITELY! Do I understand why they brand MOST Christian fundamentalists as homophobic? CERTAINLY! Further, if no one points out these distinctions to them, they’ll likely continue to come to that incorrect conclusion. That’s why I engage in these discussions and why I react so strongly when even Christians such as you seem to encourage the sloppy interpretation of homophobia…even in a conversation with people who do know and live the difference.
Mary, correction. I meant to write, “They may not believe that a person has “change into a heterosexual”. They do, in general, seem to believe that we may be headed to hell if we don’t stop having gay sex.
I ask again, which Christians do the other things I mentioned? Liberals?
You guys never answered MY questions. Quit dodging them. Who does the things I mentioned? Liberal Christians? Hardly. Look over the list. Now, do you get why gays might have a very dim view of those Christians who do these things and why they may generalize their disdain?
Mary, They may not believe that a person has “change into a homosexual”, but are you seriously suggesting that fundamentalist Christians, in general, do NOT maintain that homosexual behavior — if not repented of — places the gay person at fire risk for eternal damnation?
If they don’t think so, why do they bring up Leviticus and , Deuteronomy, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, Romans, Corinthians and other Biblical passages as proof that God considers homosexual behavior to be evil and that Hell awaits those who will not renounce gay sex?
I was talking about the “ugly clothes of homophobia” that David claims Fundmentalist Christians were “made to wear”. Made to wear, my ass. Many put them on voluntarily. As it relates to homophobia, If Liberal Christians had done the things I mentioned, I think gays might have the same “generalized” negative impression about them. But they have not, so we do not.
But Michael – you never answered directly to the false statment you make about Christians insisting that a person with SSA change into a heterosexual to avoid Hell.
This is a blatant and deliberate mis-reprentation of my beliefs about Fundamentalist Christians. Eddy, you’ve got a lot of nerve to twist my words in this way. A LOT of nerve. David mentioned racism and misogyny, not me. I do not and have never said that racism and misogyny were characteristic of “Christian fundamentalists in general”.
I strongly object to you spinning my comments to suggest that I have. I purposely limited my comments and examples to the question of why so many gays have such negative feelings about fundamentalist Christians. You, David and Mary can argue until hell freezes over that it’s not, but I firmly maintain that much of that is earned.
Nope. Never said this. I said that SOME of the negative reputation is earned — and I have cited many examples (above) as to why many gays have this impression.
So, is Carrie Prejean racist and misogynistic? I remember her remarks about homosexuality (and we had that debate here) but don’t recall anything in the other two areas. Please enlighten me.
I’ve been maintaining for well over half a dozen posts now that one of my problems with Michael’s POV was that there’s a tendency to stereotypically brand Christian fundamentalists in general with these compound labels…not just homophobia but, in this case, racism and misogyny. I know I’ve repeated it numerous times because ‘misogynist’ and ‘misogyny’ don’t roll easily off my fingers at the keyboard. Is it fair or correct to brand Christian fundamentalists in general (or Carrie Prejean personally) as racist and misogynistic and, if so, based on what evidence?
I believe Phyllis S. attended and spoke at the recent CPAC gathering. It caught me by surprise because I thought she had actually died several ago. (No such luck.) Maybe I should have used Carrie Prejean as my stereotype instead. The epitome of Christian, womanly purity with 8 solo porn flix to her credit. I want try to submit a doctoral thesis to satisfy your ego, but Phyllis has poke her head out very recently. I wasn’t trying to make a blanket statement, merely putting forward a name that was fresh on my mind who fits into the character under discussion.
David, my reference to Gov. Arnold was simply to say he is a current, well-known person, but I still have trouble remembering how to spell his name.
The original statement that Michael objects to was that Christian fundamentalists have been made to wear the labels of being 1) racist 2) misogynist and 3) homophobic. After at least 3 attempts to get Michael to support his allegations (made in his disagreement with the original statement) re racism and misogyny, I’m going to have to conclude he has NOTHING because he won’t speak to those two points AT ALL.
His latest rant goes to whether Scott Lively is a liberal (I suppose that is meant to be ‘as opposed to ‘Christian fundamentalist’) but it doesn’t address whether Lively is racist, misogynistic or even homophobic. I don’t believe he fears (phobic) homosexuals. I’m guessing that we’ve changed the meaning of ‘phobia’ to suit the agenda. From henceforth, per Michael’s dictionary, ‘phobia’ now means ‘you think it’s wrong’. By extension, fundamentalists are adulteraphobic, fornificaphobic, deceptivaphobic, …sorry, too many new words to invent to fit into Michael’s new definition.
Michael defends to the utmost his right to judge ‘Christian fundamentalists’ in general as racist and misogynistic. I, in turn, defend my right to ask for substance to support that claim when made in a public blog. Still waiting and frankly very tired of asking.
Richard,
Nice try yourself. I’ve been addressing the generalized stereotypes in Michael’s statements. One person (Schlafly) does not even justify a stereotype much less a blanket accusation. (Truth is that I hadn’t heard her name in so long that I had to look it up…yet you bring her to the discussion like she’s a major current event and the embodiment of the “Christian fundamentalist” women I was speaking of.) If you’re going to try to refute my point, I suggest you make a clear and strong connection between her and Christian fundamentalist women as a whole.
In the sense that if you still have SSA feelings you are Hell bent. Only that to act on those feelings is not in accordance with God’s intentions.
I don’t if anyone is teaching :change” to heterosexuality anymore.
Michael and Richard
There are some more current names…and I don’t know how Schwarzenegger (sp) correlates with Phyllis S.
Scott Lively is one; he may have influenced the legislation in the 90’s here in Oregon championed by Lon Mabon.
Mary, what kinds of “changes” are you referring to?
Michael – you’re going pretty far with accusations. Especially in light of the “changes” that have occurred in the last couple of years. You’re going pretty far, pal.
Christian leaders/prganizations who opposed hate crime laws, Christian leaders/organizations who opposed legal protections in housing and employment, Christian leaders/organizations that opposed the elimination of sodomy laws in the USA.
Liberals?
Christian leaders/organizations who oppose the repeal of DADT, Christian leaders/organizations that teach that homosexuality is a disorder of some kind that can and should be “repaired”. Christian leaders/organizations that teach that Hell awaits those who don’t try to “change”.
Liberals?
The three Christian men who went to Uganda against good advice and carelessly dropped matches. Liberals?
The apparent majority of Christian Ugandans who support the Bill. Liberals? The Christian organizations and leaders here in the USA who support it. Liberals?
The Christian organization that claims to love the LGBT community but still stubbornly refuses to adopt official policies against criminalization and forced “treatment”. Liberals?
Hallelujah. Like pulling impacted wisodm teeth, I swear.
For hundreds of years, LGBT people have been “made to wear” some ugly clothes too. Typically, they were not sewn by liberals.
To make a point here:
“Well, Eddy, you know how some gays are about christians.”
Sounds kind of discriminating in a pejorative sense – doesn’t it?
Nice try, Eddy, but I also have trouble remembering how to spell the name of the Gov of CA. It’ll be lots easier when its “Brown” again.
LOL! Wow you found one who might be misogynistic…I guess that shoots my point to hell. The LOL, BTW, is that even though we’ve dredged her up as an example…she’s so ‘out of the limelight’ that we can’t even remember how to spell her name right!
Michael,
Here’s what you said:
You took that quote…you said you disagreed. You didn’t qualify your word ‘they’ either time you used it (although we’ve been around that block with you many many times) saying ‘some’ were ‘made to’. Maybe when you disagree with someone you could say what you mean the first time out.
Later, even though inserting the word ‘some’, you tossed in the word ‘often’.
Then I go on to show the absurdity of lumping racism and misogyny into your generalized statement and you haven’t answered to that
.
Consider it done! Since it has been done, both in other threads and then again here:
See how I didn’t say “all”? That would mean that ‘some fundamentalist Christians’ do, now wouldn’t it?
Oh, and here:
First word ‘those’ referring to ‘those Christian fundamentalists’…did anyone think I was referring to any other group with that word? So, “Those who are” admits that ‘some are‘…before you requested it. Later, use of the word “MOST”, even in caps. It’s not the word “ALL”…in the english, “ALL” is “EVERY”; ‘MOST’ is the majority but not everybody…meaning that “SOME” are guilty.
And this was fun:
You charge that it’s ‘spin’; I claim that it is very transparent sarcasm directed at the fact that you keep on responding to me without actually addressing the point I’ve made. When I stated it simply, you simply ignored it. I ramped it up a bit the second time I said it, and again you ignored it. So I ramped up even more for the third go round, and you reacted to it while still not actually addressing whether the point is valid.
I believe you carelessly continue to make these unfounded charges and don’t even think anymore when you mix in the other charges like racism and misogyny; I’m pointing out that that schtick ain’t gonna fly.
Phyllis Schaffley comes to mind in that category.
WOW!!! Talk about “spin”!!! LOL. I never said or suggested ANYTHING of this sort. I never said “vast number” or “all”. I said SOME of it is earned. Some of it.
I am willing to admit that SOME of the bad rep the “gay community” has recieved from some fundamentalist Christians has been earned. Would it be so hard for the three of you — David, Mary and Eddy — to do likewise when it comes to some fundamentalist Christians and the view the gay community has of some of them?
I never said that ALL or MOST were. Geez. I was making the point that some of the bad rep is deserved. Not ALL. Not EVERYONE. Not YOU. SOME.
Sometimes the knots on my shoes are so tight…I have to cut the laces…my feet, underneath, are tender.
When I walk, I say, “ooch, ouch, eech.”
Michael – you are earning some shoes, too.
Oh wait! I get it…the vast number of black Christian fundamentalists is racist against the white (and other non-blacks) and the whites are all racist against the blacks and other non-Caucasians.
And where’s there’s mixing (i.e. white Christian fundamentalists having been associated with the predominantly black fundamentalists of Uganda) …well, we just won’t bother to sort that one out since it goes against the stereotype.
And the Christian fundamentalist women bring a new definition to ‘ego dystonic’ as they pursue their misogynistic agendas.
So glad we could clear that up.
No. David’s statement didn’t imply that. Those who are racist, misogynist and homophobic aren’t ‘made to wear’ anything…they clothe themselves. He was addressing the truth that MOST Christian fundamentalists aren’t guilty and yet are ‘MADE TO WEAR’ the labels that fit others but not them. It’s a point you keep proving with most every post.
David made a blanket statement that “Christian fundamentalism has been made to wear the ugly clothes of racism, misogyny and now homophobia”, implying that this negative reputation was completely undeserved. I disagree. Some of it, like it or not, has been earned.
Yup. Just that I’ll tend to back mine up with logic rather than feelings. (Please see my comments re those misogynist Christian fundamentalist women.)
Eddy: You will insist that the hegative reputation is largely un-earned or over-stated. I will insist that it is not.
Mary: I agree that some conservative christians are very compassionate, kind, serving,
Yes, Michael, you made it clear what phrase you were objecting to and I still disagree for the reasons I stated. I believe the majority of Christian fundamentalists are not racist, misogynist or homophobic AND that they have been MADE TO WEAR that stereotypical characterization. I further believe that any Christian, whether truly a fundamentalist or not, is further stereotyped as a fundamentalist if they dare to even consider that homosexual behavior is not God’s intended design. I vividly recall when Ann first started blogging on this site, asking open questions, yet being branded and attacked with unfounded presumptions for weeks–or was it months?
I further find that the brands of ‘racist’ and ‘misogynist’ are conveniently tossed into the mix of the stereotypical charge ignoring the fact that a very large number of that vaguely defined group, Christians fundamentalists are actually OF other races and that approximately half (maybe more, maybe less) are women. That presumption alone, that these Christian fundamentalist women, are misogynists…having a fear and mistrust of women is very curious indeed. I don’t think it’s a characterization that should go unchallenged simply because “Michael says so”.
I would like to see a caveat made to the effect that some conservative christians are very compassionate, kind, serving, etc….. instead of the constant bashing that some are (put in your negative comment here) I’m tired of the constant negative remarks without any reference to positive examples.
This was the phrase I was objecting to:
Sometimes, the shoe fits. Often, it has.
It’s not bashing. I said “some”. Some of it, like it our not, is deserved.
Very curious.
I of course disagree. I’ve seen enough examples on this blogsite to see that Christian fundamentalism has been grossly mischaracterized and it’s members judged not for who they are or what they say but by the stereotype. As with most stereotypes, you can always find an example or two to support your claim and conveniently overlook anything that doesn’t support the stereotype.
What is most frustrating, though, is that most of those who blog here who hold to Christian fundamentalist beliefs ARE NOT racist, misogynistic or homophobic…and yet we have to endure the verbal bashing continually. And oddly, the bashing comes from those who absolutely HATE being stereotyped themselves. Very, very curious.
I of course, disagree. I don’t think they were “made to”. I think they put one some of these clothes themselves.
@ Richard,
Thanks…
I know this is a difficult pivot point for me and many other fundamentalists. There is good evidence that fundamentalism in Christianity was adaptive and innovative in the transformation and protection of Western Civilization…
The last 100 years have been unduly harsh on Christian fundamentalism…Freud, Jung and Skinner have not given us the better world they promised; Christian fundamentalism has been made to wear the ugly clothes of racism, misogyny and now homophobia.
There is good evidence that evolutionary theory, those plausible and factually based, effected the reasoning and policies of both Fascist Germany and Stalinist Russia….
More to say, but fundamentalist Christians are not the boogey-man; IMHO.
@David: I forget at times that The Fundamentals is still less than a century old. It has become so ingrained in the radical right theology one would think it preceded the letters of Paul. My argument is not with the lessons in ethical and moral behavior that can be gleaned from the Bible; rather it is the sense that somehow those that complied both the Jewish and the Christian Scriptures had direct knowledge from God. I am a great admirer of Bishop Spong and Karen Armstrong each of whom have helped me deepen my appreciation for the mythic nature of religious belief and practice. The struggle I constantly deal with is to help others distinguish between fact and fiction as opposed to literalism and mythos. Just because something is not fact does not mean it contains no Truth. And even if it is indeed factual, is there something beyond the mere facts that are the substance of the matter. There is a line from the play Cats that was shared in a sermon by our senior minister with reference to the Transfiguration. “We had the experience but we missed the meaning.”
@ Richard,
This has only been true for the general, Western, civilization for the last 80 years.
For a hundred years prior to that, only specialized sciences had to disengage their brains, the general population could keep the “young earth” model and still be quite engaged.
There is still a legitimate question about the power of the moral lessons in the Bible, and whether they require ‘disengaging the brain.”
The fact of the story of Sodom is, that the crime was not “homosexuality”, because this art of only-men-orientation was not well-known in this cultural time. The crime was the fact, that men had lost women… Homosexuals have never lost any women, without their mothers! 😉
Same problem by the story of onan: He has not masturbated, but he has not giving his sperm to the women of his brother. They Never known, that women had egs for producing children WITH the sperm of a man.
Who can judge over “homosexuality” with witnesses of a culture who was nod informed of important biological facts? (Should have God “written” a story without these facts?)
And who would export this judgements to foreign countries and continents for persecuting any persons at reasons from so long back?
Remember. The church was believing, the cosmos should be earth-centered. So long time was passed for the correction: it is helio-centered. Miracle of any Holy Ghost??
Michael,
I might be scolded for this but I am not sure that everything in the Bible was inspired by God. I think, even back in the day, God gave free will to those that authored it. Some might have been inspired by their own need to reconcile what they perceived as right and wrong while others might have actually been still and knew God when He spoke to them and wrote from that perspective. The second perspective sits well in my heart and guides me and that is how I have reconciled it.
I have a problem with this idea as well – there are SO many problematic verses in the Bible – if it is to be taken literally, it is nothing but problematic. However, my understanding of early Christians and the early Church is that they did not take it all literally
If one must adhere to the Fundamentalist doctrine of the Bible as “the literal, infallible, inerrant Word of God” in order to be a “true” Christian, then there is no way for a person with more than a grade school education to accept that teaching without completely disengaging from their brain.
I agree with this as it pertains to repentance and forgiveness.
It just seems to me that if we take all of the Bible as the inerrant “Word of God” that God made some “u-turns” as well — from the God the Father who commanded that a woman’s hand should be chopped off “without mercy” for trying to help her husband out — to God the Son who said they should not cast those stones at the woman who slept around.
How do you reconcile those two conceptions of God — whose very nature is love? How could the “hand-chopping without mercy” God be the very same God who told Peter to put his sword away? I can’t fathom it. That’s why I think the Jewish legalists sometimes got it wrong — just like the Christian legalists of today.
Karen,
I always appreciate your input. There was a time when I would get frustrated because my simple mind could not understand some of the sophisticated words you and others used when explaining a Christian point of view – I am trying to be better.
Ann, this
is beautifully put. Thank you.
Oh yes, I completely agree
God allows for u-turns and while some of us might be a little late, when we come, we are right on time. My pesonal belief is that God delights in redemption and navigates around the interruptions so we can always know it is there when we are ready to receive it. That might be called grace – at least that is how I see it.
Personal viewpoint, not a conclusion. I still struggle with reconciling what people say God commanded in the OT — killing babies, having his chosen people go into a land and killing every living thing, chopping off scrotum-grabbing women’s hands without mercy, etc. — and the Jesus of the New Testament.
Ann writes …
In your first part, that’s pretty much how I understand it, too, except that I’d distinguish between ceremonial law and moral law. Jesus “did away with” the first but not the second.
For example, the book of Acts (chapter 15) describes one of the earliest, if not first, church councils that met to decide policy regarding the inclusion of the Gentiles. Circumcision was not required for entry, nor was keeping strictly kosher (clean or unclean) dietary laws. But it was decided that they had to refrain from certain foods – whatever was connected to idolatry, or from strangled animals, or blood itself – and from sexual immorality.
Moral guidelines continued to be discerned through other New Testament writings, always with the understanding that Christ-followers could not achieve any of them without the Holy Spirit and even then would often fail.
I totally agree with you that it is the possibility of future redemption that drives Christian opposition to the death penalty, not just a general humanitarian concern.
Next to the last line above should read “many of the Old Testament concepts and ideas about God.”
Michael, I believe in what is called in theological terms “progressive revelation.” And I have to be careful in using that term because in some faith traditions – Bahai, for example, and also some recent forms of revisionism – it means God continues to reveal new and different “truth” today.
For a Christian, it means (from Wikipedia again, but you could google it other places) …
It doesn’t so much have to do with the rightness or wrongness of the Old Testament as with a fuller, more complete understanding developing throughout the New Testament. I would say that a similar thing happened within Jewish tradition with the continued (and somewhat continuing) development of rabbinic commentary.
Folk from Marcion, a first Century scholar who was excommunicated for rejecting the entire Hebrew Bible, to Thomas Jefferson, who only wanted to eliminate enormous parts of it, folk have had problems with many of the concepts and ideas about God. So, Michael you are not alone.
@ Michael
…this is an interesting assertion. Is there a theological position to support this, or is this your personal conclusion?
Michael, Warren, Karen,
I am not as well versed in the Bible as you are, however, I thought the new convenant God gives us with the coming of a savior supercedes the laws of the old testament – Jesus came to fullfil the scriptures and those who believe in Him can have a new and transformed life by following His teachings. Redemption now becomes a very real possibility for the believer and Jesus teaches and encourages it and a person’s life is always valued over death. For that reason, do the axioms that are cited in the old testament hold the same truth to a Christian as to someone who is not?
@ Warren,
Those laws may be coming as obesity has greater medical costs and since medical costs are shared by all in a socialist medical model, there may be laws constructed to minimize the costs…
What I have trouble with was thinking that somehow Jesus (God in the Flesh) would have commanded the things that Old Testament writers attributed to God — like slaughtering babies, chopping of a woman’s hand without mercy, etc.
I don’t think it was “re-vamped”. I don’t think God ever ordered these horrible things to being with. Do you believe He did? If so, perhaps that is where we differ. I think the OT writers often got God wrong.
That would be “give some time.”
Warren, I’ll try to give some tonight to your questions.
Michael, except for Ezekiel, I haven’t referred once to any Old Testament passages in this thread. Again, that was your leap.
I know that OT passages call for the death penalty for homosexual behavior, as they do also for insulting parents and a host of other things. I think the Christian response (the death penalty) to the sin was revamped, revised, overturned (pick whatever word fits here) by Jesus’ example (the woman caught in adultery, primarily) and other New Testament teachings. So yes, I do believe the original OT penalties called for death; as a Christian I no longer support that.
Your statement could be read that I personally do. And I think that’s what you really meant. As I said, you should know better than that.
Karen, you don’t believe that in the Old Testament God decreed that gays should be put to death? If you don’t, please forgive me. I thought you did. What about Lev. 20:13?
Karen asked:
The passages apply most practically to those who believe in them. But I don’t know what you are asking? Of course they “apply” but they apply to personal behavior not to statecraft. The seven deadly sins apply to all but do you want laws based on them when the actions are done in private and hurt no one?
I don’t understand your second question. I think the passage speaks for itself. There is no revisionism in Ezekiel. Hear the word of the Lord is pretty plain.
Michael, how in the heck do you get to that conclusion? You KNOW from other threads we’ve just been on that I don’t believe that at all. Shame on you.
The passage in Jude refers to the people of Sodom going after “strange” or “hetero” flesh. Now isn’t that an interesting twist? The people of Sodom were wanting to gang rape angels, although they did not know they were angels. They recognized that these “men” were strangers, hence “hetero” flesh, and one of the ways that culture dominated outsiders was to violently rape them. It was about violence, power, and control. The God of the Bible is certainly opposed to such violence as a gang rape, whether it be gay or straight, and he is as opposed to the hierarchical power structure of today as He was with the Tower of Babel. All humans were originally created in God’s Image, and we need to take great care how we treat His Image, Jew or Gentile, black or white, male or female or transgendered, straight or gay or bi. Perhaps, the appropriate outcry of the modern church should be to oppose the oppression, marginalization, and stigmatization that supports the distorted world view that some are more human than others.
@Karen et al,
A sign of poor exegesis is to assume a passage (be it Scripture or this blog) has but one meaning; it is to over simplify. We should never assume that one verse or statement tells the whole story, it rarely or never does.
If Ezekiel says Sodom was arrogant and Jude says perverted, than it only stands God’s reason was both. (Perhaps even more reasons that are not mentioned.) But both reasons do return to the Genesis account – the rape of travelers. The travelers are as poor people because back in the day before credit cards, Internet, and banks, traveling meant you no longer had your wealth and connections with you. The travelers relied on Lot’s kindness and hospitalitiy. If they were wealthy, they would have bought rooms. The attack by the Sodomites is taking advantage of their vulnerability that they are both without wealth and without contacts. This is (at least part of) what Ezekiel refers to. Jude refers to the fact that the attack was sexual. Neither account, nor Peter nor Genesis, state this was between men and men so gay issues are not in their mind. Jude calls this “strange flesh” referring to the travelers being foreigners and/or their being angels, both make them strange and strangers to the Sodomites. The angels weren’t even male; angels are without sex; they transcend sex.
Interpreting Genesis, Ezekiel, Peter, and/or Jude to relate to gay issues is to insert a foreign agenda. The text does not condemn consensual gay sex any more than Dinah’s rape at Shechem condemns consensual heterosexual sex.
I think Warren acknowledged that.
Karen, I find your belief that these passages actually called for the public execution of homosexuals very disturbing. You are entitled to believe it. I don’t. I could never, and would never, worship or serve a God who ordered the slaughter of babies, or gays, or non-vrgin brides — or who decreed that a women who defended her hubby by grabbing another man’s groin should have her hand cut off without mercy — or that a disobedient child should be taken out and publiclly stoned, or….
Not the God I know. Not the God I care to know. He sounds like a twisted, murderous, blood-thirsty monster. How do you reconcile it in your mind?
I guess that makes me a progay revisionist — and very happy to be one.
I’m sorry, but I don’t have time to get into an indepth discussion on the various interpretations of 2 Peter and Jude and what kind of sexual sin was being referenced. (I leave early tomorrow morning for 8 days of travel and won’t be online much, so probably shouldn’t have entered this debate.) My point was that inhospitality and injustice are not the ONLY sins of Sodom. Some kind of sexual immorality was involved as well.
Again, Warren, why wouldn’t these passages apply to the Ugandans as much as the Ezekiel passages you cited? Why must they interpret and apply Scripture in a pro-gay theologically revisionist way just because that apparently appeals to you?
Should have been, not sure what you’re getting at.
Rob, the “incest bit” came later, after leaving Sodom. And the daughters initiated it by getting Lot drunk. Genesis says he wasn’t even aware of what was happening. So, not sure whay you’re getting at.
One could classify ‘rape’ as a sexual sin. Would what the men of Sodom planned been any less heinous if the angels had been female instead of male?
uh oh – I would be arrested and put away forever.
Party pooper. I vote we make all sins illegal.
Karen: The quotes you have given from The Message do indeed give a modern flavor to the original and ALSO a modern theological bias. Warren can do a better job than I but both the 2 Pet. and the Jude verses have to do with excess in gneral and not sexual acts specifically with regard to S&G. The second part of the Jude verse 7, deals with a tale of fallen angels having sexual relations with human woman which is sexual but not same sex.
short definition about
???????? (aselgeia – Strong #766)
1. lasciviousness
excess, immoderation in anything; hence, licentiousness, wantonness. Reference(s)
Mar 7:22, 2Co 12:21, Gal 5:19, Eph 4:19, 1Pe 4:3, Jud 1:4
2. wantonness
excess, licentiousness; later, lasciviousness, lewdness. Reference(s)
Rom 13:13, 2Pe 2:18
Karen:
I don’t know if Stearns holds to the traditional view or not. He did however reference Ezekiel appropriately as making a revelatory comment about sins which were identified with Sodom.
I am not clear that the 2Peter passage refers to anything other than what Ezekiel referred to. I am less trusting in the paraphrase version. I will check the Greek later but I suspect we are not dealing with words that have only a sexual connotation.
The Jude passage is more supportive of a sexual aspect to the sins of Sodom but I do not see of necessity a gay focus. Sodom was a wicked place apparently no matter what your tastes or inclinations. What Ezekiel establishes is that whatever sexual sins were running rampant, the sins of ignoring the poor and needy were pretty high on God’s list of grievances.
I don’t really know how these passages relate to Uganda. Do you want the Ugandans to make up an Anti-Sexual Immorality Bill? If so, what would porn get you? Maybe lust would get some jail time. Whatever one believes about personal sins, I do not think the next step is to get the state to codify that belief.
When I read that passage, this first thing that came into mind was the incest bit with his daughters. There’s no rescue from that.
Stearns’ personal interpretation of Sodom-related sin is true as far as it goes. But if it doesn’t take the whole context of Scripture into account, then it’s just another classic case of proof-texting – culturally conditioned, truncated, cherry-picking to try to bolster a revisionist argument.
Outside the references Jesus makes, which do not indicate the nature of the sin, Sodom is referred to several times elsewhere in the New Testament. (Hey, isn’t one of the favorite revisionist arguments that it trumps the Old Testament?) And both times it’s connected to sexual sin.
The context of the 2 Peter 2 passage is, interestingly enough, a warning about false teachers.
The Message, which gives a modern flavor to the actual Greek passage, puts it even more strongly …
The Jude 1 passage is quite similar …
So how do you interpret those passages, Warren? Are they not applicable to the Ugandans’ situation, too?
Dr T, very good posting today.
Self-righteousness needs easy targets. You can’t criminalize or force “treatment” on the prideful, the obese, or those who could care less about the poor and oppressed.
Micah 6:8 — “He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.”
A very insightful piece of bible study – and a message that needs to be read to those in holy orders too. It is curious, for instance, that the current Roman Catholic pope insists on telling us to be frugal, yet he presides ove rthe wealthiest organization on the planet.
The rock band Genesis summed the problem of biblical sodomy up perfectly back in 1992 – and it’s because someone gets too much undue respect simply for being a man of faith that those in the church are likely to get away with it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugZq9hiuCJo
“The sexual sins of Sodom are second rate compared to the sins of pride and greed. Ban Sodomy, anyone?”
What sexual sin are you inventing?
The reference to detestable things in the passage quoted from Ezekiel uses the exact same Hebrew word Ezekiel uses earlier in the passage to reference human sacrifice. It is not about sex, gay or straight, but about inflicting harm on others.
Everyone who claims that homosexuality is sin is an heir of Sodom, sacrificing the lives of GLBTQ human beings to appease a false god.
Hmmmmm!
Should I email this to dear Martin?
On the other hand, it may be better when….
Oh, forget it! I will just have a smile on my face, thinking of him trying to figure out what exactly the post means. I am sure he will completely miss the meaning…!