The phrase 'gay Christian' blends 2 incompatible truths

What if they have a voice that sounds gay ?

I don’t think straight people are lining up to date them.

Can you be a Jewish Christian?

When I teach "gay" people, I am not trying to make them straight prior to becoming a Christian, since they do not have the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit. If we cannot allow "gay people" into the church building, how can we allow any sinner in?

Regarding the quote in the article:

I do not think the phrase suggests that at all. I think the phrase only suggests, "I'm gay" and "I believe in Christ." Anything other than that is the author's interpretation. The author's interpretation taken to its extreme equates to believing someone saying, "I'm a fat Christian," means being fat is something God intended and can't be changed (immutable).

seeking.IAM said:

Regarding the quote in the article:

"...Saying "I’m a gay Christian" isn’t just acknowledging sinful desires; it affirms a flawed, psychologized anthropology. It suggests that being gay is something God intended, or at least something intrinsic, morally neutral, and immutable..."​

​

I do not think the phrase suggests that at all. I think the phrase only suggests, "I'm gay" and "I believe in Christ." Anything other than that is the author's interpretation. The author's interpretation taken to its extreme equates to believing someone saying, "I'm a fat Christian," means being fat is something God intended and can't be changed (immutable).

Click to expand...

If someone says " I am a bank-robber Christian" we say they "need to give up bank robbing, and we don't mean - give up just a little".

They may indeed have a strong streak of greed, lust for money, envy, covet, desire to steal etc... But no matter we say they must give it up.

Then if they choose Christ - "but they still have issues with coveting" - we don't say they are not a Christian - ---- but we also don't want them to claim to be promoting the coveting lifestyle for Christians.

When it comes to defective sinful natures - all humans have one. But that has never been an excuse for a saved born-again saint - to indulge in what the sinful nature demands.

Often it seems that the LGBTQ+ political trend tries to class that aspect of the sinful nature as something sacred and special.

Oddly enough the problem is not nearly so prevalent in nations that do not pander to that lifestyle as if it is to be valued and promoted.

Michie said:

Focus on the Family recently posted on social media a clumsily worded post that, while honorable in its desire to communicate truth in love regarding homosexuality and salvation, sent something of a muddled message. The article was removed and a correction was made following widespread criticism, including from publications like Not the Bee.

Such criticism was warranted as it reeked of a slide into insidious Side B “gay Christianity” doctrines. Yet Focus responded well, replacing the article with a solid and faithful essay written in 2013 by Jeff Johnston. Those of us who once lived and identified among the LGBT are thankful that they have been, along with The Alliance for Therapeutic Choice and Scientific Integrity, faithful to the entire Gospel, championing the hope we have for transformation.

However, I believe the conversation needs greater clarity, especially for those wrestling not only with same-sex attraction but with questions of identity.


Continued below.

The phrase 'gay Christian' blends 2 incompatible truths

There is a difference between experiencing same-sex attraction and embracing a gay identity

www.christianpost.com

Click to expand...

Isn't the body a temporary dwelling? Why make their identity about something that isn't eternal?

Michie said:

However, I believe the conversation needs greater clarity, especially for those wrestling not only with same-sex attraction but with questions of identity.

Click to expand...

What questions of identity are you concerned about? Those who are confused about their gender (who misled into believing that gender is determined by biological sex, and that “gender reassignment surgery” does not actually change gender in a meaningful way, it merely deprives one, in cases where applied to the reproductive anatomy, of the ability to reproduce, by mutiliating the reproductive anatomy more severely than any other historical form of genital mutliation, short of castration. If we could actually give a man working female reproductive organs and vice versa, thus turning a male into a female, and vice versa, from a sex as well as a gender perspective, then it would be a purely moral question (and I would still be opposed to such procedures), but as of right now the elephant in the room that everyone is ignoring is ontological - it is impossible for a biological male to become a biological female and gender reassignment surgery is cosmetic, not functional, and often involves sterilization.