Social Media Posts for Pride Month? (For Christians)

[PloverWing]

So anything more recent? Are gangs of evil Christians going around and lynching gays or something?

Why is the government tolerating this?

In the US, in the last few decades, some major civil rights laws have been passed and some landmark Supreme Court cases have been decided. As a result, police no longer raid gay bars or arrest gay couples for having sex in the privacy of their homes. The remaining violence in my country is done by individuals.

Here are a couple of lists, if you want something more recent than Stonewall:

List of acts of violence against LGBTQ people - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

History of violence against LGBTQ people in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This isn't ancient history. Most of these incidents occurred in my lifetime. Things are much safer for gay people now than when I was a child, but I do not take that safety for granted.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

In the US, in the last few decades, some major civil rights laws have been passed and some landmark Supreme Court cases have been decided. As a result, police no longer raid gay bars or arrest gay couples for having sex in the privacy of their homes. The remaining violence in my country is done by individuals.

Here are a couple of lists, if you want something more recent than Stonewall:

List of acts of violence against LGBTQ people - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

History of violence against LGBTQ people in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This isn't ancient history. Most of these incidents occurred in my lifetime. Things are much safer for gay people now than when I was a child, but I do not take that safety for granted.

Alright. So why do Christians need to especially provide security and protection towards LGBT? Why do we need to signal this group in particular as opposed to other groups? Will the LGBT community commit to signaling their defense of Christians who want society to be run according to Christian standards?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Is not the whole Christian life a call to repentance?

Not exactly.

Regarding LGBT, and my own Facebook feed in particular, my friends who post about LGBT are either, "Accept them & encourage them to do everything they want to do", or "Reject what they do, and if you reject the people in the process, so be it--God laughs at the wicked, so we should, too". (One of my friends actually said that to justify being a jerk in an abortion discussion)

What I'm trying to do, with the call to acceptance & repentance, is to bridge the two extremes that my friends share, taking the best of both worlds.

It's too bad that your friends can only conceptualize the issue in an "either/or" dichotomy. No one is sin-free, even AFTER they accept Christ and AFTER they orient themselves towards frequent repentance. And being that we're all on a journey, I think an invitation is the better way to bring them when they already know the "repent or fry,""turn or burn" lingo that so many Christians use as a first resort in relations with non-Christians. I'd use it instead as a caboose on the train for those who don't already seem to realize that being a Christian means letting ourselves be renewed in Christ.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Alright. So why do Christians need to especially provide security and protection towards LGBT? Why do we need to signal this group in particular as opposed to other groups? Will the LGBT community commit to signaling their defense of Christians who want society to be run according to Christian standards?

We should be advocating for the general safety of all fellow human beings. Besides, we're all sinners in need of constant grace.

 

[PloverWing]

Alright. So why do Christians need to especially provide security and protection towards LGBT? Why do we need to signal this group in particular as opposed to other groups?

As Christians, we are called to help and protect all of our neighbors, but especially those who are the most vulnerable.

 

[RileyG]

Are homosexuality being game hunted or something that violence against them is especially noteworthy? Why do we need to signal this? Just ignore pride month and anything to do with LGBT. They aren't worth acknowledgement.

Well said.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Or you could simply say “none of this celebration applies to me” and move along with your day… Which seems far easier and less passive aggressively confrontational.

 

[URA]

Alright. So why do Christians need to especially provide security and protection towards LGBT? Why do we need to signal this group in particular as opposed to other groups? Will the LGBT community commit to signaling their defense of Christians who want society to be run according to Christian standards?

As Christians, we are called to help and protect all of our neighbors, but especially those who are the most vulnerable.

Or you could simply say “none of this celebration applies to me” and move along with your day… Which seems far easier and less passive aggressively confrontational.

Apologies for my lengthy absence from this thread.

To address the points here...while I know it's something that happens somewhere else, I don't know of any direct threats to any LGBT people I know, nor of major discrimination for jobs, schools, etc. The issue I'm addressing is not one of actions or legislation, but one of ideology. This may or may not be true for the people around you...but for those in my social media feed, the options are 1) accept LGBT people & ideologies, or you're hateful; and 2) reject LGBT people & ideologies, because they're wicked, and we're better off without them.

What I'm trying to do, by the power of memes & prayers, is take the best of both worlds. Accept people (because we know Jesus would); reject sin (because we know Jesus would). Hence the choice of Bible verses that were recommended to me.

Perhaps this is not terribly relevant to some of you. If so, focus on what is. We all have different ministries, and part of that is in response to the problems & strengths of those around us. In my case, there are people who believe a rejection of Christianity is the only way to love -- and trying to rectify that misguided belief is the reason I started this thread in the first place.

I'm about to post the "final draft" that @PloverWing helped me out with on this thread. Whatever you think about all this, let's still pray that something good may come from this conversation, and whatever is yet to come when others see it on Facebook.

 

[PloverWing]

I'm about to post the "final draft" that @PloverWing helped me out with on this thread. Whatever you think about all this, let's still pray that something good may come from this conversation, and whatever is yet to come when others see it on Facebook.

I applaud your willingness to start a conversation with people who disagree with you on LGBT issues. (From the sound of it, everyone disagrees with you! ) The best conversations may need to happen in real life -- sitting down to discuss things over lunch or coffee, perhaps -- but social media can be a start. I hope you have productive conversations that lead to greater understanding.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

As Christians, we are called to help and protect all of our neighbors, but especially those who are the most vulnerable.

Should we help those who hate us and would undermine Christianity in society? Why should it be a moral prerogative to especially protect homosexuality?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Should we help those who hate us and would undermine Christianity in society? Why should it be a moral prerogative to especially protect homosexuality?

...... uh, didn't Jesus say we are to [do our best to] "love our enemies"? You make it sound like there's a big caveat in there somewhere.

Sure, we could attempt to inject what seems to be a scriptural caveat from 2 Corinthians Chapter 10:1-6, but I think to do so would be to sheer away what Paul said from the fuller contexts he was addressing.

 

[PloverWing]

Should we help those who hate us and would undermine Christianity in society? Why should it be a moral prerogative to especially protect homosexuality?

"You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven, for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers and sisters, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the gentiles do the same? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

 

[PloverWing]

I will add that I disagree with the assertion that Christians and LGBT people need to be enemies. But if they are, then Jesus talked about that.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I will add that I disagree with the assertion that Christians and LGBT people need to be enemies. But if they are, then Jesus talked about that.

I completely agree, and I would briefly add that it's my personal interpretive view that when Jesus said to "love our enemies," He wasn't specifically referring to people whom we oppose, but rather to those who for no moral fault of our own oppose us and deem us to be their enemy.

And if we really want to get technical about it, I think both you and I would say that Jesus' context was referring to those like the Romans who are [even to the extent of being] oppressors of God's People.

 

[URA]

Should we help those who hate us and would undermine Christianity in society? Why should it be a moral prerogative to especially protect homosexuality?

In addition to what the others have said, here's another very relevant bit of teaching:


"Whatever you do for the least of My People, that you do unto Me."

Jesus never gives guidelines, in word or action, of what counts as "the least". He seems just as open to conversation with Pharisees (John 2) as crowds (John 6) as adulterers (John 8). All of these folks are sinners in different ways, and all of whom suffer in their own ways. All had some things to fix in their lives, and Jesus was open to receiving all of them, never condoning actions that go against Heaven, but realizing we can't make it to Heaven without Him.


And there's no moral perogative to protect homosexuality, but there is always a moral perogative to protect those around us, especially the ones who feel hatred from Christians.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

"You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven, for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers and sisters, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the gentiles do the same? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

So Jesus is here telling us we have to enable and protect our enemies in their sin? It's fairly obvious you believe as an Episcopalian a modern sexual ethos and are in full agreement with modern non-Christian attitudes towards sexuality, but you're abusing the Gospel for your own political ends. No Christian should protect the 'rights' of people to sin. We are not obligated to do so. Love is not affirming sin.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

...... uh, didn't Jesus say we are to [do our best to] "love our enemies"? You make it sound like there's a big caveat in there somewhere.

Sure, we could attempt to inject what seems to be a scriptural caveat from 2 Corinthians Chapter 10:1-6, but I think to do so would be to sheer away what Paul said from the fuller contexts he was addressing.

Does loving them mean enabling them and defending their legal right to sin?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Does loving them mean enabling them and defending their legal right to sin?

No, but it's not a political case of "either/or." Our job is to love people and help them in substantive ways that we very often fail to do (feeding, clothing, educating, praying for, etc.).

One would think that by the way some Christians talk today, the only real love we have to offer is to tell them our denomination's version of the Gospel, as if that is our only obligation as Christians to other people. In the U.S., it gets worse than that when some who profess to be Christian aver for pulling out their guns and making a "putsch" in the Name of Christ.

Somehow, while God may occasionally use a Constantine type political figure to further His Kingdom in some way, I don't think we're supposed to take Constantine as our model of Christian 'love.'

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

No, but it's not a political case of "either/or." Our job is to love people and help them in substantive ways that we very often fail to do (feeding, clothing, educating, praying for, etc.).

Actually it is political in that homosexuals and their advocates seek to influence society along certain lines which leads to sin. Why isn't it enough that I want nothing to do with these people? Do I have to support them in their political efforts as they seek to undermine the normative sexual ethos of society?

One would think that by the way some Christians talk today, the only real love we have to offer is to tell them our denomination's version of the Gospel, as if that is our only obligation as Christians to other people. In the U.S., it gets worse than that when some who profess to be Christian aver for pulling out their guns and making a "putsch" in the Name of Christ.

Should we love our enemies more than fellow Christians? Whose interest should we be operating in?

Somehow, while God may occasionally use a Constantine type political figure to further His Kingdom in some way, I don't think we're supposed to take Constantine as our model of Christian 'love.'

I would prefer a Constantine to a Maxentius or most political figures that rule us today. They may not be the model and they are guilty of sin but at least they would reform society in a direction which is geared towards Christianity. We should not as Christians take the commandment to love our enemies as enabling them or supporting their rights. This is a modern liberal concept that the historic Church never participated in.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Actually it is political in that homosexuals and their advocates seek to influence society along certain lines which leads to sin. Why isn't it enough that I want nothing to do with these people? Do I have to support them in their political efforts as they seek to undermine the normative sexual ethos of society?

You want "nothing to do" with fellow human beings who are having massive difficulties in their lives. Y'know, I think it's a big stretch to equate being available or being willing to have compassion for other people with, as you said, "enabling them."

I didn't say that you have to support them in their political efforts or agree with them. But you do have to learn how to listen, so that if there's any way to understand why they're at where they're at spiritually (and sexually), you can then offer the appropriate helping hand rather than simply berating them for their sins.

Do you see the difference here in what I'm saying? I didn't say that it's not political. I said it's not the case that is a political 'either/or' situation.

How do you interpret the verses in Ephesians 6 where Paul says that "we wrestle not against flesh and blood ..."?

Should we love our enemies more than fellow Christians? Whose interest should we be operating in?

Again, you're trying to make this an either/or situation. That's not what this is. Are you familiar with Richard Wurmbrand by chance? I'm not asking if you agree with his theology. I'm simply asking if you're familiar with who he is and what he went through and how he dealt with it.

I would prefer a Constantine to a Maxentius or most political figures that rule us today. They may not be the model and they are guilty of sin but at least they would reform society in a direction which is geared towards Christianity. We should not as Christians take the commandment to love our enemies as enabling them or supporting their rights. This is a modern liberal concept that the historic Church never participated in.

And, again, I never said that enabling others for sin is the alternative to what you're asserting. Apparently, you're not familiar with how vociferously I denounce Hugh Hefner's Philosophy. If you understood that, then you'd understand my own view better. If people are going to be 'denounced' and charged with rampant, egregious sins and destructive philosophy, I'd start with that which has been most promoted among those who are straight people, among those who have accommodated Hefner's type of Hedonism (and the corporate structures that have more than amply enabled his views on life and sex) BEFORE we begin to point trenchantly at those in the LGBTQ+ side of the sexual continuum.

We who are straight need to clean up our own damned houses first.