Being Gay and Christian...is this possible?

[thegospelisgoodnews]

what you've said here is the truth---God will change your heart. Basically you must choose between relying on Him or relying on your wife. he won't force you, of course, because He's a gentleman.

Jesus said that He had come that people might have life, and have it abundantly. There are many people today who settle for what they can make of life themselves. your example of the life you have now is what Jesus came to change.

I have friends who were addicted to drugs before they met Jesus, and knowing Jesus, they would not go back to that life. Alcoholics say the same thing, as do those who ran with gangs. in all three instances they had friends in their old lives, and they thought that those lives worked for them--until they met Jesus and found out how great life can really be.

up until now you've been doing life your way.
if you choose to follow Jesus, then you do life His way, or you continue to do life your way. But since your way is not His way, there is a choice to be made. and yes, not making a choice is still choosing. With Jesus you're all in or you're all out--there is no middle ground.

Trying to live in the middle will tear you apart, and you will regret it.
the old way will not seem the same because you have been changed, yet trying to cling to the old and still be in the new life will not be satisfying.

There are those who try to do so, I admit. But the only way they can justify it is to change God's rules. And God, being eternal, doesn't change his rules.

i understand the fear of loosing your support and your friends--of giving up everything you've known--but you have the choice to let go of what you are holding on to and what you know, in order to grasp something infinitely better that is unknown to you now. It involves trust and hope that the new life in Christ that you are going to, will be better than what you leave behind.

there are so many stories in the bible about this, but the one i am reminded of is Lot's wife. When she and her husband Lot (brother of Abram) left Sodom, the Lord told her not to look behind her. But she did, and in the story she was turned into a pillar of salt---unable to go either forward or back.

the point here is that while you know the things in your past well and have relied upon them, they aren't permanent, and can be taken away. the only sure thing worthy of your trust and faith is Jesus. His love is eternal and cannot disapear from those who are His sheep, because He has named them and sealed them as His own forever, and no one can take them away from Him.

But like Lot's wife, you can turn away--He gives everyone that option, but it is harder to get back once you have turned away than it was to come to him in the beginning. in turning away you have that much more baggage, that many more chains holding you back that must be let go, that much more to work thru, than when you first came to Him of your own accord.

it's easier by far to make the committment to follow Him the first time He calls you.

good post! deserved to be repeated, I believe the Holy Spirit was speaking through this post

 

[paintedgoldfish]

ghedricks63 I was wondering if you could tell me what are the "clobber passages"?

Pdudgeon Thank you for your kind and thoughtful answer to my question. I actually know what you mean about it being harder to come back to God for a second time. I was a Christian for many years when I was younger. I am having a great deal of a hard time learning to trust God this time around.
I hope that he is really a God of love as people have said. I hope that the anatomy of my partner will not cause God to keep me from his grace and salvation. I realize that many people think it will keep me from God's presence, but I offer him my heart anyway.
I am believing that God is so big that he doesn't care weather the person I love has a p*n*s or not. Of course I could be wrong about that, but I can't imagine that God wants me to hurt my partner by leaving her while there are no problelms in our relationship.

 

[Catherineanne]

I am a new Christian of about 5 weeks. I am attending a First Assembly of God church and I know that they believe that being Gay is a sin. I am a Gay woman in a 9 year relationship.
I have been told that I can loose my salvation if I remain in a homosexual relationship. I have been told that it is between me and God. And I have been told that God doesn't care who I love, just that I live my life for him.
I realize that this is a liberal forum and the answers I get will be reflective of the liberal views here. What I am looking for is what the Bible says on the issue.
Can I be Gay and be a Christian? How do we know how God feels about the subject?
I don't want to loose my relationship with my wife. She means the world to me and we rely on eachother for assistance with our various medical needs.
I am afraid to give God my whole trust and love for fear that he will take her away from me. I want to reach out to God to draw me closer to him but I am too afraid to do it because I know he willl change my heart. I don't want him too.

Is it ok to stay with my wife and why?

The Bible says nothing whatever about gay women. When it talks of what is translated as homosexuality, it is always in relation to men:men

Make of that what you will.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

correction and reproval, are actually functions of the Church, and as Christians it is a duty of ours. Folks say not to judge, but trying to correct sin isn't judging...just sayin.

It's something that develops within relationships . if there's no relationship existing . reproof has no place .

it is if this person comes into my church and tries to teach the Word to a Sunday School Class proclaiming being homosexual is ok and God doesn't consider it a sin....THEN...it becomes my business.

I agree, however, that is a very particular and developed preface . and is not always the case .

 

[Phenbert]

We are moral agents, something that no other creature on this world has. Animals run on pure instinct, we are however moral agents, and that is a big separator.

Ok, so if we consider things morally, I guess it comes down to whether homosexuality is harmful, either to those engaging in it or anyone else. To me it doesn’t seem particularly harmful to wider society, since it relates to an individuals’ personal life. So is it harmful to those involved? I would say on the whole, no not really. Potential problems of disease, infidelity and domestic violence are more or less comparable to those experienced by heterosexual couples.
So it’s natural (in that it’s found in nature) and it’s not particularly harmful (as compared to something like infidelity).

 

[Searching_for_Christ]

Ok, so if we consider things morally, I guess it comes down to whether homosexuality is harmful, either to those engaging in it or anyone else. To me it doesn’t seem particularly harmful to wider society, since it relates to an individuals’ personal life. So is it harmful to those involved? I would say on the whole, no not really. Potential problems of disease, infidelity and domestic violence are more or less comparable to those experienced by heterosexual couples.
So it’s natural (in that it’s found in nature) and it’s not particularly harmful (as compared to something like infidelity).

Its not just an issue of harm. As Christians we believe that God is the one who sets the moral standards, and thus our morals must be determined by what God has declared wrong, and what he has declared good. Obviously the folks on this board believe homosexuality to be fine, thus morally sound, however there are others who disagree. So the issue of homosexuality isn't "does it hurt others" its "has God declared it morally good or bad?" and thus sin ? Question seems to be up in the air for others.

 

[hedrick]

The Bible says nothing whatever about gay women. When it talks of what is translated as homosexuality, it is always in relation to men:men

Make of that what you will.

I hear this statement made fairly often, but I don't understand it. The only really unambiguous clobber text for Christians is Rom 1, and it deals with men and women equally. Rom 1:26. While I've seen creative explanations of "unnatural", I think the context makes it clear what Paul means by it.

As far as I can tell, the debate really hinges on the question of whether Christians can believe that Paul had beliefs from his Jewish background that he hadn't examined carefully, because the occasion hadn't arisen. If you think that all of Paul's beliefs are binding on Christians, it's pretty clear what they are in this area.

I have this feeling that liberals are trying to be too creative in exegesis. We tend to try and come up with explanations that will convince someone who believes in inerrancy. The result are arguments that don't make sense, and which I don't think represent the way we actually think. Inerrancy is a modern aberration, popularized at least in part in the South to defend slavery. Homosexual isn't acceptable to conservative Christianity because it was designed specifically to turn Paul's unexamined opinions into holy writ. To try and make it acceptable seems like a losing deal to me.

 

[meliagaunt]

So the issue of homosexuality isn't "does it hurt others" its "has God declared it morally good or bad?" and thus sin ? Question seems to be up in the air for others.

in a strange sort of way I agree; that is the issue. And my answer is this: I don't believe God has declared it morally good or bad. I don't believe God dictated the Bible word for word, so I don't treat particular commands, whether they concern mixing cloths, eating shellfish, slaves obeying masters or men lying with men as being declared by God.

The author(s) of Leviticus declared some form of homosexual activity unacceptable; so did Paul in Romans and 1 Corinthians — I do read Greek and have some understanding of how the key word in 1 Corinthians was probably based on the Septuagint rendering of Leviticus. Whether they had in mind some form of temple prostitution or not is not a major concern for me. What is more important is how we read the Bible.

I've recently been rereading a book of sermons by Rowan Williams from when he was Bishop of Monmouth. In one he writes that 'Scripture, we know, is not simply an oracle, it is not simply lapidary remarks dropped down from heaven and engraved on stone. Our lives would be a great deal easier if it were. No, scripture is the record of an encounter and a contest.' He goes on to talk about the gift God wants to give us in scripture, and our difficulty receiving it, and the need to read it 'around Christ.'

I've also been reading Brian McLaren's 'A new kind of Christianity' which talks of the Bible not as a book of the Constitution, to which legalistic types can appeal for answers to questions of legal and moral fact, but the inspired library of a community, preserving that community's arguments and discussions.

Both writers see clearly that God encounters us in the whole sweep of scripture, culminating in his Word, ie Christ, not in the fallible, because human, words of the individual writers. McLaren insists, as I would insist, that he reads the Bible this way, not because he wants to dismiss it, but because he passionately loves it for what it truly is, the poems and letters and chronicles and debates of the faith community of Abraham and Moses and David and Isaiah and God's son, Jesus.

I don't believe God has declared homosexual acts to be morally wrong, because I don't believe God has literally spoken in Hebrew, Greek or English. He has spoken another language, the language of becoming incarnate in Jesus.

 

[pdudgeon]

Pdudgeon Thank you for your kind and thoughtful answer to my question. I actually know what you mean about it being harder to come back to God for a second time. I was a Christian for many years when I was younger. I am having a great deal of a hard time learning to trust God this time around.
I hope that he is really a God of love as people have said. I hope that the anatomy of my partner will not cause God to keep me from his grace and salvation. I realize that many people think it will keep me from God's presence, but I offer him my heart anyway.
I am believing that God is so big that he doesn't care weather the person I love has a p*n*s or not. Of course I could be wrong about that, but I can't imagine that God wants me to hurt my partner by leaving her while there are no problelms in our relationship.

the anatomy of your partner is not the concern here. Nor should you use her as a reason for not comming to Christ. the concern is that you place her above God, and concern for her welfare above that of comming to Christ.

When we serve God we literally put Him first before any other.
that means He's more important in our life than our mother, father, sister, brother, husband, wife, kids, dogs, cats, money, status, bankrole, job, station in life...anything that you measure important in your life MUST come second to God.

so yes, if he says 'leave your partner and follow me', or 'sell all you have and follow me', or 'come and see where i live' that's what He is asking us to do.

What we are required to put in it's righful place so that we can follow Jesus is different for each person. For a very few it is a simple change in direction.
For others, it could be a job change, a move across country, selling what they have and becomming a missionary, or hundreds of other 'things' standing in our way to Jesus.

the reason for the change? Jesus has a specially designed relationship and way of thinking and doing and being for us. it's different from what we have now, and the amount (or scope) of that difference is so that the relationship with Him fits us and how He made us. so that when we put that relationship with him on, it is like a working, supporting harness made for two--Him and us--so that from then on we pull together as one team. That's why he says "My yoke is easy and my burden is light" because He takes the major part of the work on himself of any task, and you and He work together.

But that harness is made for 2--- just Him and you. nothing else. that's why God comes first.
for those who are married the spouse comes after God, then the kids, then the job.
So the order is:
1. God
2. me
then in order-- behind God and you..... not beside God and you, not in front of God and you,

3. spouse (if there is one)
4. kids (if any)
5. job


that's why it doesn't work when we try to fit more than just 2 in the harness, or drag our baggage along from our life before we met Jesus.
He wants our eyes looking forward and focused on our race that we run with Him, not looking around or looking behind us. our hands need to be free and not fettered, and our hearts free, and not bound by earthly things while we serve Him.

Now having said that, have you spoken to your partner about Christ yet?

Speaking about Christ and the change He has made in our life to others that we care about is another important thing to do.
If you have Christ in your life, He will shine thru you, and they will probably notice that change in you. Unless you tell them what has happened, they will be left in the dark. they deserve an explaination for why your behaviour and attitude is different than it has been, and they might also share in your joy and the hope you have now.
Tell them what you have found, and don't hold it back. Everyone likes to hear good news from friends and share good news with friends.

 

[Jase]

If homosexuality is a sin, then I have not log to take out of my eye.

You have your own sins to worry about. It's not your job to tell other people what you believe they are doing wrong, when you yourself are just as sinful.

you too are "correcting" what is considered sin by your own personal interpretation as well.

True, but at least I have evidence to back up my position (original language, context, statements by those who actually witnessed those claims being made like Philo, etc.) Yours is 100% based on a modern day English interpretation written by Conservative Bible publishers trying to make a profit.

 

[Jase]

ghedricks63 I was wondering if you could tell me what are the "clobber passages"?

The "clobber" passages refer to the 5 verses in the Bible that are used to condemn gays.. Hence why they are called "clobber". People attack gays with them by just randomly quoting them as stand alone out of context verses.

They are the Leviticus 18 and 20 verses, 1 Corinthians 6:9, Romans 1:26, and one verse in Timothy.

 

[Jase]

Its not just an issue of harm. As Christians we believe that God is the one who sets the moral standards, and thus our morals must be determined by what God has declared wrong, and what he has declared good. Obviously the folks on this board believe homosexuality to be fine, thus morally sound, however there are others who disagree. So the issue of homosexuality isn't "does it hurt others" its "has God declared it morally good or bad?" and thus sin ? Question seems to be up in the air for others.

But we have to ask why God would declare it morally bad, unless there was something inherently abused with it in Biblical times that would warrant such a prohibition. What is it about a person's anatomy that makes a man loving another man so abhorrent compared to a man loving a woman?

Due to the fact that the entire animal kingdom has gays, and science is more and more showing that gays are essentially born that way, obviously it was part of God's design. As that state representative said on youtube, "How many more gays does God need to create before we accept that he wants them here"?

 

[Jase]

I hear this statement made fairly often, but I don't understand it. The only really unambiguous clobber text for Christians is Rom 1, and it deals with men and women equally. Rom 1:26. While I've seen creative explanations of "unnatural", I think the context makes it clear what Paul means by it.

You do realize the men and women Paul was talking to were all heterosexuals engaging in pagan worship practices right? Hence why Paul said God "exchanged" their relations. If they were already gay, they had nothing to exchange to make them go with the same-sex. They had to have been straight.

As far as I can tell, the debate really hinges on the question of whether Christians can believe that Paul had beliefs from his Jewish background that he hadn't examined carefully, because the occasion hadn't arisen. If you think that all of Paul's beliefs are binding on Christians, it's pretty clear what they are in this area.

How are they really clear? The Bible wasn't written in English. Neither Romans 1 or Corinthians mean the same things in our modern Bibles as they did in Greek.

I have this feeling that liberals are trying to be too creative in exegesis. We tend to try and come up with explanations that will convince someone who believes in inerrancy. The result are arguments that don't make sense, and which I don't think represent the way we actually think. Inerrancy is a modern aberration, popularized at least in part in the South to defend slavery. Homosexual isn't acceptable to conservative Christianity because it was designed specifically to turn Paul's unexamined opinions into holy writ. To try and make it acceptable seems like a losing deal to me.

Not quite sure what you're saying here. I agree, inerrancy is a false belief. But Paul's views based on the Greek do not mean what they do in the English Bibles.

I'm not sure if you're agreeing with the conservative position, or saying they try too hard to make Paul perfect.

 

[Searching_for_Christ]

True, but at least I have evidence to back up my position (original language, context, statements by those who actually witnessed those claims being made like Philo, etc.) Yours is 100% based on a modern day English interpretation written by Conservative Bible publishers trying to make a profit.

You keep bringing up this conspiracy but bring nothing to the table evidence-wise..other than your own personal opinion of course. You think my position doesn't have any evidence? how about 2,000 years agreement that it is sin? Homosexuality wasn't randomly called a sin when the KJV came out, its been the teaching of the ancient Church, and the reformed Church..all up until very recently.

 

[Jase]

You keep bringing up this conspiracy but bring nothing to the table evidence-wise..other than your own personal opinion of course. You think my position doesn't have any evidence? how about 2,000 years agreement that it is sin? Homosexuality wasn't randomly called a sin when the KJV came out, its been the teaching of the ancient Church, and the reformed Church..all up until very recently.

Um, no it hasn't. I already told you, Paul's contemporaries specifically stated it was Shrine prostitutes Paul was condemning. And for the entire Reformation, Corinthians condemned masturbators, never gays (this view was so prevalent, Martin Luther translated it as masturbators in his German Bible, and many Greek dictionaries still list that as the meaning of the word Paul used).

Not sure where you get the idea that homosexuality was condemned for the past 2000 years, especially considering once again, sexual orientation was not discovered and coined until 1900 A.D. There was no such thing as "homosexuality" for the past 2000 years. There were certain same-sex behaviors, but they were almost exclusively some form of prostitution, or pederasty.

 

[hedrick]

[I'm withdrawing this temporarily, until I have time this evening to do a better job.]

 

[hedrick]

Incidentally, saying that historically many Christians have taken a key Greek word as referring to masturbation may not be saying all that much. That's a topic on which many Christians have been at least as irrational as homosexuality. The Greek word in 1 Cor is sufficiently ambiguous that you can make a good case that it acts sort of like a Rorshack ink blot. Its interpretation may tell us at least as much what the interpreter's sexual concerns are as Paul's.

 

[glennagail]

Kiwimac, It is a healthy and loving relationship. Could you suggest a Gay friendly church?

There is a wonderful website called Gaychurch.org that not only has a huge list of Gay friendly Churches but lots of well written articles about the Scriptures that people say are about being gay,

 

[Searching_for_Christ]

Not sure where you get the idea that homosexuality was condemned for the past 2000 years, especially considering once again, sexual orientation was not discovered and coined until 1900 A.D. There was no such thing as "homosexuality" for the past 2000 years. There were certain same-sex behaviors, but they were almost exclusively some form of prostitution, or pederasty.

False, homosexuality was very well known about in the Early Church ect.
YouTube - ‪N.T. Wright on Debate about Homosexuality 4‬‏

 

[ghendricks63]

False, homosexuality was very well known about in the Early Church ect.
YouTube - ‪N.T. Wright on Debate about Homosexuality 4‬‏

Rather than post a link to a lengthy video from a scholar you happen to agree with, (who is well known for his ultra conservative views btw) why not either summarize the points he makes you believe are relavent or make them yourself. We could obviously post links to dueling scholars as some sot of claim for authority...but I am not sure that helps very much.