Blogging Ottinger (tim)Those Trouble-Making Christians
And loved others, too. Emperor Julian the Apostate (361-363) complained that Christians were impious—they rejected Roman gods—but worse than that, they undercut reliance on the empire. They “not only feed their own poor, but ours also,” he wrote. “See their love feasts and their tables spread for the indigent. Such practice is common among them and causes a contempt for our gods.”
So reads a quote from a recent Christianity Today article on the opposition to public office for people who aren’t supporters of homosexuality.
It’s an interesting read, even if you disagree.
I’m not sure which side you are on based on your minimal post, so I’ll just comment based on my views to add to the debate… (either way, I don’t want to inspire a flame post, just a thoughtful debate).
My family was strongly against homosexuality and saw it as a sin until it was brought into question recently. You see, several years ago one of my close relatives came out and many saw them as living a sinful lifestyle. But a few of us reflected on them and realized that they had been tormented by the anti-gay religious upbringing and attempted with every nerve of their body to reject this “sin”. I look at this relative and I know that they didn’t choose this situation and if they could, they would be straight (and they tried). But, accepting this, they are now much happier and leading a better life accepting themselves in this way. I have to say that I have come to the belief that some of us were created by God from birth as homosexual and there is nothing those people can do. I don’t understand why this would happen any more than God creates man in different shapes or colors, but it is one of his ways of challenging us to grow as a people.
So, if my faith leads me to believe that many homosexuals are born with this trait and are not choosing it, then I can’t believe that they are sinning any more than a person of color, gender, or ethnicity is. Because of this, I can’t vote for a public official if I know they will create more persecution for those in this situation. My argument is that church and state should remain mostly separated, and that public officials of faith should do their best to bring together people of different opinions and beliefs and not strive to convert or constrain those with differing beliefs.
Thanks for inspiring the dialog, I’m curious what others may respectfully comment.
Comment by Kevin S. — 2007-July-18 @ 11:10
I think that we in the Christian community have got to get past the idea of any person’s temptation to sin being justification for persecution.
There are many sins, some of which are attractive to me and many which are not. I don’t desire to gamble my family’s security away, but I also don’t desire to persecute the gambler. I’m tempted to be angry, but I try to not be a hothead. Sure, I don’t find guys attractive, but other people do. I don’t think that temptation is a sign of mental or physical inferiority, not matter what the temptation is.
I am not against people. I have sadness for the temptations and sins that they have to struggle against, and for the damages that past sins may do in their lives, but they are just people. People have problems. I have also had sins in my life, and have some frequent temptations still. Everyone may fall down from time to time. Nobody said that being human was going to be seamless and wrinkle-free. We just hope to get good at it in time.
We are born flawed and corrupt, and we can easily live our lives in increasing brokenness if something wonderful doesn’t happen. We are all disposed to selfishness and dishonesty and foolishness. Every person, Christian or otherwise, should understand gay and straight people are different only in the details.
I have had homosexual friends. One I’ve lost to AIDS. I never hated them, and didn’t want them to be mistreated. I don’t see how anyone would want their friends and family to be mistreated, or especially why people would want to persecute them personally. But wrath and fear can be sinful too, right?
Now this is speculation from my acquaintances, but I suspect that homosexuality is more like identity than like race or nationality. There are straight guys who identify as hard-drinking, butt-kicking country boys. Others may identify as liberal intellectuals. Others identify as skirt-chasing, beer-swilling “good time charlies”. Partyers and womanizers are still acting according to their identity. The same is true of some harsh and judgmental rough-shod Christians. They may all have a natural bent toward these things, but it is not strictly determined that they have to be so. They’ve come to see themselves as such, and it is as much a part of them (they feel) as their own faces. It is consistent with the personality they were born with. And isn’t the suggestion that they change offensive to them all? In Christian-ese we’ll refer to “dying out to self” referring to the idea that a conversion is a change in identity. It is like dying and being reborn that way.
I have some friends who identified as gay early on, but later realized that for them it was not “natural”. Their early sexual experiences in teens and twenties were homosexual, though. In some cases they were introduced to homosexuality by adult men when they were children (ie they were sexually abused by pedophiles). In other cases they simply found acceptance among gay men that they did not receive among other peers. Gay sex ‘worked” for them (biologically speaking), and that sealed their identity at the time. The guys I’m talking about are not living as gay men today. They may have some temptations but they are living as very happy heterosexual people. You can say that the temptation makes them gay, but being tempted to steal doesn’t make me a thief if I do not steal. I’m sure every Christian is an adulterer or thief or liar by that token. These guys love their wives and kids and are not interested in going back. Some of them are quiet about it, some have taken opportunities to help others reevaluate their identities as well (not with force of words and stern demands, either). I don’t know every gay person, and I don’t pretend that my gay-no-longer friends are the norm. But neither do I assume that everyone gay is gay for life. I’m not sure that it’s particularly meaningful that they are “born that way”. I don’t pretend to understand all that’s involved in such things. It’s not what my life is about. I just leave room for people to change if they choose, and I try not to hold their past against them. I hope to receive the same charity.
I don’t think that God cares which temptations a man resists. I don’t think I should either. My life needs to be about caring for the people I do meet. I need to be about acceptance (even in disagreement). I am not called to hunt down people whose temptations vary from mine. I am not called to be “bad news” to anyone. Maybe other people feel that they are, but I have my doubts.
In a case of a discovered heterosexual, adulterous relationship a group of elders brought a woman to Christ for judgment. He decided not to assign punishment even though it was lawful to do so, but instead decided to release the woman, with an admonition to make a change in her lifestyle. I don’t see it as persecution when Christ sent away the would-be stone-throwers, nor when He said “Go and sin no more.” I saw that as rescue. A kind of “catch and release” if you will.
He didn’t spend time convincing her. He just saved her and let her go. She didn’t have to pay for it. She didn’t have to stop other people from doing the same. She didn’t have to prove it first. I think that’s remarkable. It’s the same treatment I got.
The life I want to live was most clearly summed up in “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and your neighbor as yourself.” The rest is all application. I can see where not giving in to sinful temptations fits into that. I can’t see where that accommodates the persecution of those whose temptations get the better of them.
Comment by Tim — 2007-July-19 @ 12:43
good post… as always…
Comment by Kevin S. — 2007-July-19 @ 01:23