On one of my recent trips up to Sactown to spend time with my extended family, especially Mom (who'd just be pre-diagnosed with pancreatic cancer), my brother Rob and I began a conversation around this issue of the Christian Church and those with same-sex attraction (SSA). Rob grew up in the same Chinese American Baptist church as me, but he and his family attend a Presbyterian church downtown, directly across the street from the state capital. My brother is a city councilman and it doesn't surprise me that he and his wife love and respect their pastor for preaching about current events and controversial issues. Even before the May ruling on same sex marriage by the California Supreme Court, Rob's church has been welcoming and affirming same-sex couples for years. So you can well imagine the tenor of our conversation when I shared with him what our church hosted on May 10th (see earlier posts).
I'm older by five years but Rob's probably 100 IQ points smarter than me (and I'm not stupid). He doesn't miss a trick. If you've got any holes in your arguments, he'll spot 'em long before you do and drive a truck through them. As we got deeper and deeper into the conversation around the Christian Church and homosexuals, I began bracing myself early for his expert cross examination (when he was arguing cases in the courtroom, he went 10 years without ever losing a verdict! His very first legal victory was defending Renault against an anti-lemon lawsuit!).
The clock on the desk in the guestroom read "1:22 AM" when he exposed the flaw in my publicly pronounced position.
"So let me get this straight, Ken. You're saying that homosexuality is just one outcome of all of human sexuality's being broken, right? But since the church is supposed to be a place of God's healing and hope for all broken sinners, people at EvergreenLA now are open to receiving those struggling with same-sex attraction, with the operative phrase being 'struggling with.' However, if someone with same-sex attraction was NOT struggling with this, was NOT convinced that this orientation was contrary to God's Word and God's specific will for him/her, then you would have to draw the line there. Did I hear you say that? That's what I thought.
"Okay, look, you're the theologian, not me. I'm a lawyer and this is about religious convictions, not the law of the land. But even though I'm not a theologian, I'm troubled by the flagrant inconsistencies of your publicly stated position on this important issue. Again, I'm not a theologian like you, but do you mean to tell me that there is no one--not a single person--coming to your church today, even serving as a lay leader or on your ministry staff--who is actively sinning AND not struggling with that sin? You said that you're trying hard not to single out homosexual behavior as the worst sin, that instead you're trying to treat this 'sin' in the same way that you treat any and all sins, right? (At this point, I became familiar with feelings of entering a battle of wits unarmed).
"So let's start with you, Ken. Are you a sinner? Okay, but are there any sins that you in fact AREN'T struggling with? You know, they don't bother you, you don't spend any time fretting over them, and you and the church certainly don't believe that whatever these might be don't disqualify from being a pastor, let alone just coming to church. Let me get really concrete for a moment: Is being too materialistic a sin? Definitely listed as such in the Bible. Do you have a problem with being too materialistic? (I was about to plead the 5th but that would have been fruitless.) But let's say that you know that being materialistic was a sin but you aren't struggling one bit with being too materialistic. Or let's say it was the sin of gluttony. Any obvious gluttens going to your church, Ken? Any in leadership positions? Or let's say it was the sin of an unforgiving heart. Do you think there might be a good number of folk at EvergreenLA who harbor long-standing grudges without ever really struggling with their refusal to forgive?
"So if sinners who AREN'T struggling with certain sins are welcomed and allowed to serve throughout the church, why are you changing the standards just because this time it's about people with SSA?"
As the big hand was just minutes away from making it clear that we were approaching 2 AM, all I could tell Rob was that those were great points and that God had just used him to kick my behind.
I'm really starting to believe that the crux of this crucial issue before us all comes down to these questions: 1) Is someone born with SSA or is it a choice?, and 2) Regardless of whether scholars and scientists will ever solve the mystery of sexual attraction, how will you respond when the person with the SSA is your own flesh and blood or your best friend since first grade?
Can you get me unstuck from my apparent inconsistent application of Scripture towards LGBT community members?
I tell you one thing: The next time someone begins by saying, "Well, I'm not a theologian like you..." you'd better either brace yourself for a bumpy ride or it's time to strap in and TAKE OFF!
this probably won't unstick you, but with SSA, the level of acceptance could be higher. Like person 1 - I'm a glutton and way too big, but I'm working on it. Person 2 - I'm gay and this is my bf.
of course, if person 1 says I'm big and deal with it, then that's kinda the same, so your brother has a good point.
you have your entire sabbatical to get unstuck........haha
i like your entire conversation notes. this does seem to be the church's big hypocrisy issue with the lgbt community (or SSA if you will).
but your questions sort of bother me. 1) Is someone born with SSA or is it a choice? --> first of all, i don't think anyone is born attracted to anyone! were you attracted to women when you were just 2 days old? i don't think so. just like nobody is *born* obese. people are born with hands. with noses. with eyes (even those change color often within the first 1-2 years). so... i think your question really is... are people born with some type of gene which produces SSA when their attractions surface?, or are people who say they have SSA actually actively fighting society with a the "choice" to deny their true/inert opposite sex attractions? and i think that is offensive. i'm sure the "freedom of choice" may be apparent among some who claim SSA, but i think it's really silly for you to believe the entire SSA (especially those who grew up in the christian church) community has those ssa's because they will them into existence.
2) Regardless of whether scholars and scientists will ever solve the mystery of sexual attraction, how will you respond when the person with the SSA is your own flesh and blood or your best friend since first grade? --> sure, let's put aside the whole "choice" issue. sorry. but if i find SSA in my own flesh, then i'm a SSA person. and if my best friend since first grade has SSAs, then he/she has them. what do you mean, how will someone respond? will i hate myself? will i hate my friend? honestly, if i have a lot of baggage/expectations/misunderstandings/etc built in me from my life experiences and don't understand SSA to the point i alienate and fear it, then i will require a lot of processing. if i don't have this baggage, then i will be able to live and adjust accordingly much easier, hopefully maintaining a level of respect for myself/my best friend since first grade. is this the type of question/answer you're looking for?
as always, thanks for sharing your thoughts!
hi pastor ken
thanks for your posts. I really appreciate them a lot. Being from the Midwest and a conservative Chinese church, we don't get too many of these discussions or messages.
I was wondering if romans 7 plays a role into this?
@lao_ye_ye - thanks, Lao Ye Ye. I just reread Rom 7 (dang, the Apostle sure wrote some thick stuff!) and the gist to me there seems to be an acknowledgment that we've got a constant battle waging within each of us between sin and God's righteous standards. Only Jesus can resolve and win that war, right? But even though Jesus claims the ultimate victory, we're all still left fighting those battles within us. Church should be a place for all embattled people, yes? But what if various persons no longer are putting up any resistance to the forces of the sin? Is church a place for them? Who's to say, though, that being included in the Body wouldn't eventually bring them to a place of conviction...
In the midst of all this parsing of doctrine and theology, it sort of comes down to who is actually, honestly, part of our churches? Even those battling, say, porn or a heart of unforgiveness--do they believe that our churches are safe and healing places to bring those battles to Christ? If you're going to a Midwest, conservative Chinese church, I seriously doubt it. It's hard enough to have that kind of environment on the Left Coast!
Thanks for commenting.
in response to this:"So if sinners who AREN'T struggling with certain sins are welcomed and allowed to serve throughout the church, why are you changing the standards just because this time it's about people with SSA?"
I guess the first question that you should answer is : As soon as you know somebody is living a double standard life (any kind of sin) and dont feel guilty either struggle with it , did you let them serve and have leadership role in our church?
Let say as soon as you know somebody in our church living together before the sacred ceremonial of a marriage/ or have a second wife or mistress / or ,I dont know, constantly stealing from 7/11 store , would you let them serve or have leadership role in our church?
If you don't, then what your brother said does not applied to you. We are being consistent. I don't think you are responsible for any inconsistency that you don't even know. If you are never informed or know about somebody's frugal lifestyle then how would you know. But when something is so apparent and the congegration start complaining about that particular person, than yes, I would say now you are on stake.
But if you do, then I agree with your brother. I would also feel troubled by our church inconsistency.
in response to this:1) Is someone born with SSA or is it a choice?, and 2) Regardless of whether scholars and scientists will ever solve the mystery of sexual attraction, how will you respond when the person with the SSA is your own flesh and blood or your best friend since first grade? Pastor Ken, I don't think this question is even valid according to our manual (the Bible). God has been very consistency with His word from OT to NT. He never change his feeling about SSA activity. I don't even think this is even an appropriate question that we should be asking. If there is a 50% chance that SSA is natural, then why our Creator forbid his own creation to do what they are naturally created?" That's why I dont think is even a question for the believer. Maybe I am wrong, but I found those questions is very contradictary to God's Words.
I appreciate your openess to a lot of view , I do, but we have to be brave to accept that SSA behavior is contradicting with the Bible and that is all to it.
If one of my sister is SSA, I will still disagree with her, we have thousand of things that we disagree on anyway since we were little. If I have to add one more thing, it wouldn't hurt our relationship.
@archiwife - Ah, but if your sister were a lesbian, what would be the extent of your relationship with her? Cut her off completely, as if she did not exist? Some would choose that path. Others would look for ways to stay in relationship without giving the impression that her lifestyle is acceptable to God (or you), but that, I believe, is easy to say and hard to practice. How do we hold to biblical convictions while sharing the planet and lives with those who have different convictions? That's still the fundamental question for me, on this issue, and on lots more issues that have nothing to do with sexual attraction, i.e., religion, politics, lifestyles, values, etc.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment. None of us will know what we will actually do until or unless we're confronted with a real, live situation, not a hypothetical. You want to know what would be an even BIGGER challenge? If (speaking again of SSA) it was you or me that felt this way. I'm NOT saying that this would automatically cause us to toss out the apparent biblical guidelines; my point is that it's always lots easier to be clear about matters when we know it will never happen to us. There are some Christian brothers and sisters who are really struggling with SSA. I hope we can create an atmosphere (with the Spirit's empowerment) of healing and hope, even if we believe the Word prevents us from "affirming" a lifestyle built around SSA.
Well, I'm not a theologian like you... All I really have to say is: We're all sinners; praise God for the blood of Jesus!!
As for your dilemma (and a bunch of my musings)... Your brother identified EBCLA's position as "receiving those struggling with same-sex attraction, with the operative phrase being 'struggling with,'" and this is based on the conviction that "homosexuality is just one outcome of all of human sexuality's being broken" and that "the church is supposed to be a place of God's healing and hope for all broken sinners." I don't see any necessary (unavoidable) inconsistencies with that. I think the question is how consistent do you want your church? Of course, the church is made up of people, so it's not all up to you... How consistently can these people live in relation to those who struggle (or don't struggle) with SSA? I think you're calling your church to live more consistently, so I think it would be safe to say to your brother that we are all works in progress and that although some inconsistency remains, your hope for all to be welcome in the church and to experience the transforming grace of God.
However, I can see some people wanting to justify the inconsistency because they still struggle with accepting people with SSA (as broken people who need the grace of God as much as they do), and I'm not sure if that's what you're looking for. If so, I think you're going to have a hard time convincing your brother... Besides tradition, culture, stereotypes, etc., I think Christians tend to hold sexual sins and the people who commit them at a different level because they are more threatened by them (and for good reason when you're dealing with rapists, child molestors, etc.). Sexuality is difficult to address because it is deeply personal, yet in public conversations, it is largely taboo except in jest or vulgarity. People just seem weirded out by something they hold so precious, but they can't talk about it. I think that's one problem, one that you've been working on. Also contributing to the sense that homosexuals are threatening is that there are groups of homosexuals promoting homosexuality. If there are groups promoting gluttony or materialism, they get considerably less publicity. The church is, in a sense, in arms against the enemy of same-sex marriage promoers, so someone with SSA in the church can feel like an infiltration, thus the response of keeping them at arms length and not allowing them to be fully involved in the church.
What is important to remember and to reinforce is that the doctrine of the church will not change, and sin will be sin. I think it as important to preach against persistent sins such as materialism and gluttony in the church as it is homosexuality. Let the Spirit of God convict who he will. If someone comes into the church flagrantly promoting homosexual practices, I would expect an unwelcome response from the church, just as I would expect the church to refuse to embrace a get-rich-quick hedonist. It's a consistent response. I think what is key in this situation is to get to know the person with SSA. Most people expect homosexuals to oppose the church and thus refuse to welcome them. Getting to know a person with SSA may reveal someone who is genuinely searching for God and who will not oppose the church. People who desire to be part of the body without challenging the beliefs and positions of the church should be welcomed to participate in the life of the church along with the rest of us sinners.
1 Cor. 5 is instructive. We should have a category for public, scandalous sins that should not be tolerated in the church, because it compromises our witness for the Gospel. To allow someone to profess to be a Christian, while living in such scandalous sin, would be to defame the Gospel. This is not to say that Christians don't sin. No, all of us do struggle with sin, and have unrepentant sin in our lives. But my pride or gluttony or impatience or etc... is of a different kind according to human standards than homosexuality, or a man sleeping with his father's wife, i.e. something that is publicly contradictory to the Gospel. 1 Cor. 5 doesn't answer all questions, but it gives us a starting point in thinking about the differences between sins (in a human sense) and how we are to deal with them differently and appropriately. Blessings,
I'm not a lawyer, just a believer. I'm not to judge people in the end and not to make ultimate decisions now, but having a conservative view and not too liberal for certain views I feel is best since I don't make the ultimate decision and bottom line is why do you need to try to justify a gray area? Is it too much of sacrifice or better yet an inconvenience to change ourselves and not believe the whole truth which the bible clearly states (applied for those who are believers and who are "struggling w/ SSA")?
I am by no means perfect, I do struggle, but by asking forgiveness, identifying my sin and through God's guidance and time, I'm able to slowly "wean" myself from the sin. It's like a body shock if you jump into a cold pool, you freeze up and stay in a state of suspension and can't change you pose (in the initial shock). But as God helps you to warm up, you are able to change. Anyways you just lost a battle not the war, keep soldiering on brother. Hope your mom is doing better. We are still praying for her at HCF. Blessings.
I too am from a "conservative" Chinese church in the midwest and wanted to thank you for your posts. First off, I wanted to express my appreciation for your willingness to put yourself out on a limb and while some of your ideas may be slightly left of my own (I hope you excuse my description ), I praise God that there is an air of open and civil discussion about these very complex social issues that you're advocating. Its about time that the Church stepped up to the plate and reclaimed the call to spread the transforming influence of the Gospel back into the public square.
In any case, I've been reading all the responses you've gotten in your past few blogs about this subject and I hope I won't be rehashing old ideas but I wanted to add my ten cents on these topics...
I am of the conviction that homosexuality is no worse a sin than fornication or adultery (or incest or polygamy). However, until someone can convince me through Scripture and/or sound logic otherwise, I do believe homosexuality is still a sin none-the-less. As your brother correctly points out that Christians can be inconsistent and outright hypocritical in their singling out how they treat homosexual sin, and homosexual sinners in particular, I believe it is more of an indictment on how lax the Church has become in turning a blind eye on sin in general. In effect, we should correct and admonish every sinner in love, no matter what particular sin they might struggle with, and to not do so would be to deny the Church one of its primary duties of sanctifying Christians. Now I'm not advocating a Church with a culture of judgemental or legalism by any means. Of course we are to freely welcome all sinners into the Church but to affirm their sin is a catastrophe in my view and a "watering down" of the Gospel into nothing more a feel good message with no power to transform any one, much less a whole world.
Now I would counter your brothers rhetorical questions with my own: "What if someone was openly and flagrantly having sexual relations before marriage going to your church, even in positions of leadership? What if they AREN'T struggling with this, it doesn't bother them, they don't spend any time fretting over it?" Obviously, there are some sins that can tear a church apart worse than others.
I also appreciate the one response that spoke of the dangers of Postmodern ideas creeping into "Biblical Christianity." While I too am slightly wary of the PM/Emergent Church phenomena, I do recognize that there are some very valid critiques of conservative evangelicals they are trying to address and remedy (I just personally think they in effect are throwing the proverbial baby out with the bath water in their erring on the other extreme). So in this case, I would just like to caution everyone that open and civil dialogue is great and commendable and desperately needed, but not to lose sight of the fact that we need to dialogue with a purpose. We are called to be a salt and light not only in action and deed, but in mind and thought in defending the unchanging Truth (ie, the Word).
Especially as this discussion on SSA was a conversation amongst Christians it seems (I don't presume to have heard the entire context), we need to always align our lives to Scripture and not align Scripture to how we feel it would best fit our own lives or society no matter how personal or painful. So in any dialogue, we need to always challenge our Brothers and Sisters in Christ in the light of Scripture as it is the only firm rock upon which our decisions and judgements can be based upon, especially one as charged as homosexuality. By no means am I accusing anyone of crossing this line per se (actually far from it), its just a caveat and warning I wanted to bring up sooner than later.
We are called to preach the Gospel faithfully. Not that we're not intentional on how to do so in love and with all sensitivity, but if we do, its only natural that people would be stretched and challenged (and maybe even offended but hopefully only until the Holy Spirit whips them into shape ). Thank you for doing this Pastor Ken.
Sorry, I didn't mean to ramble this long so I'll stop now. God bless!
Hi PK,
sounds like your brother is in the right profession. However, standing up for big corporations against consumers is not something I would be proud of (ever see a Renault on the road anymore?). But, I digress.
In response to your questions, my opinion is : 1) both. Many people are born w/ the imbalance and yes, though we are born perfect in God's eyes, many in society and the Bible would consider them imperfect. Transgenders face this dilemma from birth. For many others, it is a choice. 2) I would treat a friend or relative w/ SSA the same as I would treat all my other friends and relatives who have sins but are better able to hide them. We are all sinners and who are we to say which sins are acceptable and which are not? It is because of the blood of Christ that God forgives us. If we come to Christ and ask forgiveness then it will be up to him on our judgement day whether we will be forgiven or not. We all 'struggle' with our sins. We live with them daily. For many of us, it's an addiction. To distinguish between sins that are allowed to come through the doors of God is no different than distinguishing between colors of skin in my opinion. I know EBCLA doesn't operate that way.
I think 'struggling' is the wrong term to use. Perhaps more in line would be 'acknowledging your sins, bringing your sins to the cross, and asking for forgiveness' .
Good luck and I hope you enjoyed the article I left you in your inbox at church.
Hey PK,
just came across some info you may be interested in. Filmmaker Daniel Karslake made a video called "For the Bible tells me so" which deals with this very issue. There's a short interview of him on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6Lpc4s5Yk0 and you can see where it is playing locally: http://firstrunfeatures.com/forthebible_playdates.html
Hey PK
First of all, great post! I always appreciate your honesty and openness through this blog. I went to SFSU for college. Imagine being part of a college fellowship, the only college fellowship on the campus for that matter, in what is often considered the lgbt capitol of the U.S. if not beyond that. My freshmen year, I had multiple encounters with dorm mates who were gay and lesbian. We would be friends first and then I would find out their sexual orientation... and sometime around there, they would find out that I'm "religious." I think there were as many negative stereotypes filling their minds about me and Christianity and there was filling my mind about their lifestyle. I think the church has misrepresented Jesus and the love of God to this community. We would have conversations, and all I could really tell them is that I had friends in high school that smoked out daily (mj) and drank every weekend. I didn't agree with their lifestyle, but I still loved them. I would still do anything to help them in a time of need, and i would still hang out with them as much as I would any friend... just not always when they were doing things that I didn't necessarily agree with. And my high school friends as well as my gay friends understood and respected that... just like some of them didn't want to come to church with me, I didn't want to go smoke out, or hit up gay bars every weekend. We were still good friends. So in response to your second question- if it were flesh and blood... or my best friend from first grade... I would continue to love them as I would anybody else. I wouldn't hide my feelings or thoughts about the subject if it were asked, but at the same time I wouldn't be constantly condemning and preaching to them every second of every day. Just think about Jesus and the rich young man. He stated the truth and let him chew on it. Didn't follow after him forcing him to believe and repent. He presented the information and if asked again, he would say the same thing, but then he left the decision up to the rich young man. He spoke the truth in love and not in condemnation. It is a different approach for those outside of the church and those inside the church.
In regards to SSA within the church... I think it's important to not confuse what the church believes with how the church acts. I know that the two should be the same... but the church is run by man, who is fallible, and so the church makes mistakes... and sometimes years and years of church culture can sometimes overrule the church doing the right thing. Look at Israel and how their culture got in the way of what the original purpose of so many of their practices were. I'm reading and rereading and rereading again, a great book called, "The Intelligent Church" by steve chalke. It's mind blowing. One of the chapters is says, an intelligent church is a messy church. Look at the author and perfector of our faith. Jesus kept in his presence a tax collector, simple fishermen, someone that would deny him three times, someone that would doubt him, and even someone that would betray him. Not only did he keep them around him, but he served them... loved them... ate with them... took the position of a humble servant and washed their feet. He loved the prostitutes and the samaritans (which was culturally unacceptable). He didn't just surround himself with "righteousness" and there were people in his original discipleship group that had issues.
In terms of church, people will always bring up 1 Tim 3 in this conversation. They say this verse gives rules for leaders and shows the restrictions and limitations. But beyond that, this verse also shows that there are people with these problems in the church. Paul wouldn't have written this to Timothy if there weren't people that were drunks, materialistic, and adulterers INSIDE of the church. This was written to the church because the church was messy. They loved everyone... the believers, the sinners, and even more so, the people who (whether they believed or not) were struggling with sin.
The American church has really strayed from it's roots of compassion and has fallen into a foundation of fundamentalism and self-righteousness- which is what we see as the major flaws of the pharisees when we study the new testament.
It's a really hard topic, and one that is so hard to balance what we believe and how we live. But I think that we have to believe and live the truth of God 100% and we have to love with God's love 100%, and if our focus is both on loving God (and his truth) and loving others as we've been commanded, then we'll be well within God's plan for the church.
Thanks for the great thought provoking questions PK. Keep up the great blogging. God bless.Tim
I cannot judge people with SSA without considering my own struggle with heterosexual porn for many years.
After confessing my struggle with porn and my almost adultery to my fellow leaders at my church, I was not surprised that the pastor took me off the leadership team. I willingly stepped off of my responsibility and put my effort into my marriage. I had made progress but porn was still a struggle for me. Months later, I was hurt by the "updated" leadership contract which required the leaders to avoid sexual sins specifically without mentioning any other sins. I couldn't help but feel that it was a personal attack and that I had no room for mistakes because my sin is worse than everyone else's sin.
I chose not to make a big deal about the contract because I understood the importance of purity among the church leaders. However, I wonder if the rest of the leaders felt okay about their sins because they were not listed on the contract. So, even though I agree that the church shouldn't "affirm" a lifestyle with sexual sins including SSA, I feel the church often target these people and cut them off quickly. I think we all need to put more effort into dealing with our own sins, whatever they are, before we go and judge others.
I am fortunate to say that I learned to love my sister unconditionally. We fought with our fist since we were 5, we are so different in so many different ways. When we were little, we would solve it with anger and most of the time my dad would take care of it for me LOL . Sorry, but doesn't all of us have sin?
Anyways, now that we are "grown up" , we are more accepting. We are still very different in values and believe in so many ways. She doesn't go to the church anymore and don't ask me why. We had some confrontation about a lot idea, but we still love each other. Last week she told me that she doesn't want to meet with me for the whole next year (I don't know whether this come out from an anger or what). I said (silently), awh yeah right. I was right, she is going to meet me this weekend. We can't just stay away from each other. I know how much it would hurt me to cut off my sister from my life. I guess at every end of our weary confrontation, we understand that it is impossible to say that "to love is to agree". So if eventhough she is a lesbian, I don't think I can stop loving her.
In parallel to our discussion, isn't it working the same way? it is almost impossible to agree to what SSA believe or with anybody but it is very possible to welcome and love SSA or anybody without agreeing and confirming. Just like loving any relative's who may disagree with our value. I remember one of the SSA presenter, always said "but if you say you love me then why you said who I am is a sin". Isn't that what we do everyday, sinning and forgiving?
I guess from all my gibberish , I come to an understanding that only by remembering God's grace in my life and by reminding myself of my own brokeness, I can love and accept my christian bro and sister who are SSA or any other people who I disagree with.
Ken
Great post! If a close friend or relative were to share that they were struggling with SSA I would begin by taking off my theologian hat and I would sit with them as a friend. I would want to respect their struggle and their experience and I would listen to what it is like to be a person who struggles with SSA. While at grad school one of my favorite instructors was one of key proponents for the legalization of gay marriage. She was sensitive about not pressing the cause in the classroom, and her honesty and character did much to show me that as a heterosexual evangelical Christian I was insulated from the struggles of LGBT persons. It was easy for me to see how insulting it was to presume to define a whole group of people with slogans like "hate the sin and love the sinner". Once I got knocked off my high horse I concluded that it would be a whole lot less insulting for me to begin any dialogue with listening. I learned a lot about the pain of struggling with SSA from your conversation with Gary and Marian. You have shown a great deal of sensitivity and courage by continuing this conversation--not to mention facing Rob at 1:15 am/ Thanks for keeping it on the table.
Dave
Why is it that some sins are more acceptable in the church than others? Sin is sin right? SSA and other sexual sins are more taboo in society at large, but, why, as Christians, should we reflect society in that way? Aren't we to be different? Why is it that we must ask the question of whether or not we should accept a sinner who struggles with those particular sins into the church and how much we should accept them? It seems that there are some sins that are acceptable and few people seem to be putting up much of a fight to overcome them, sins such as being judgmental and apathetic. Which sins are more poisonous to the body, to people in general? I would say that being judgmental is worse than having SSA. Yes, SSA is contrary to God's will for us. Being judgmental says, I'm better than you for these reasons...to me, that seems more dangerous to the church and more dangerous to society.
@dqami - thanks, I saw this movie already. It's very well done and features Rev. Dr. Mel White a great deal, one of the leading evangelical theological voices on this issue from an openly gay POV. Because he's openly gay (and not struggling), his arguments however compelling hermeneutically, have a self-validating ring to them. In fact, let me go out on a limb and say that proponents of both extremes on this issue who are arguing from Scripture typically have "non-falsifiable" positions. In other words, both sides are so convinced of the "rightness" of their respective positions that no biblical evidence to the contrary would be taken seriously. It's sort of like Creationists who are promoting Intelligent Design as a scientific theory. Most serious scientists (even some Xn ones) immediately remark that I.D. proponents would NEVER embrace evidence that pointed to the NON existence of God. That's why I believe that our upcoming short film on the May 10th Conversation is so unique and so needed. There will never be a day when everyone agrees with everyone else's convictions, so we'd better find ways to share this planet!
hi PK! it's been encouraging to read through your thoughts as you've been processing this touchy subject. I have a couple of close homosexual Christian friends, and it's been disheartening to find wisdom and guidance from pastors and Christians who have never had a gay friend. I know it's important to understand the theological basis for what we believe, but it seems like in the midst of all the nitpicking, we forget to simply see people as valuable human beings regardless of their sexual orientation. Your willingness to dialogue about this gives me hope that one day Christians will be known by their love.
I would start with the same disclaimer that I am no theologian, and I am no lawyer either. But I think the whole objection there is around three issues.
First issue is the “struggling with” (as in “the operative phrase being 'struggling with.' However, if someone with same-sex attraction was NOT struggling with this, was NOT convinced that this orientation was contrary to God's Word and God's specific will for him/her, then you would have to draw the line there.”)
I think we muddle the issue when we bring the feeling “struggling with” into the context. Christians are not people who are just struggling with sins. (That is true, but Christians are more than just that). In reality, struggling or not becomes irrelevant. I am no lawyer, but from what I understand, if a person got pull over by a cop, it is irrelevant if the driver was struggling with his drinking problem or not. The operative phrase is that the driving privilege is for all law abiding citizen.
This leads to the second issue in defining the church as “a place of God's healing and hope for all broken sinners”. (Once again it is true, but the Church is more than just that). Using the “driving privilege is for all law abiding citizen” concept again, we could understand that the community of Jesus is a community of people who recognize the authority of God’s Word on their life. Someone may not struggle with materials or gluttony for a while, but when the Holy Spirit illuminates God’s Word in that area of their lives, they would start considering about how to obey what God asks of them. I may drive around with my 7 years old kid in the front seat all the time without any “struggling” all year long. But when a police officer in my neighborhood pulls me over and told me that only kids 12 years and older should ride shotgun, I should seriously consider abiding that law. If I choose to ignore his warning, the next time I would deserve a ticket. If I keep it up and ignore all court order, I may lose my license, all because I am not willing to be a law-abiding citizen.
Similarly, churches may choose to accept and love a homosexual in their midst. But what about the one who start flirting with other people in the church? How about influencing kids? How about when they start hurting the community?
The third misconception is that all sins should be treated the same (1 John 5:16-17 did not say "sin is sin"). Having a person committed gluttony in leadership is entirely different than having a person committed adultery in leadership. There are qualifications God’s Word demanded in leadership for elders and deacons. We could debate whether “husband of one wife” would mean married men only, or does it includes purity in single women. But to make it include just any homosexuals is pushing it too far.
I am sure that even Rob’s church, despite they are welcoming and affirming homosexuals, they are not going to condone promiscuous homosexuals to hold leadership positions either. They are also drawing a line somewhere (and so they are not completely all embracing either).
We all draw lines. The question is, “what is the ruler of our lines?”
Hello! Thx for the post. I just wonder, does Rob or his church believe homosexuality is a sin? I just wanted to know when a church says affirming of SSA, does it mean they believe that it is not a sin? Thanks!
I am not a conservative evangelical and worrying what is and is not sin matters little to me. The gospel is about liberty from sin so I would think that Christians should spend more time fighting against more harmful behavior than whether some one is attracted to someone of the same sex.
p
hi pastor ken,
i know i'm jumping into this convo a little late (i just found out you had a blog--i've only just recently returned to the sgv after having been away from the area for quite a number of years), but i wanted to put in my 2 pennies.
first, for those heterosexual folks who think that sexual orientation is a matter of mere choice, i would suggest that they try to view members of the same sex with attraction. as a heterosexual male with many male friends, i find that i just cannot find any sexual attraction toward them, or any other males for that matter. on the other hand, i have and do feel sexual attraction to females. while i can't say that i've actively tried to flip a switch such that i would become sexually attracted to other males, i can say that even within that hypothetical construct (trying to feel sexual attraction toward other males), i have been unable to find myself sexually attracted to other males. thus, i would question whether it is possible for anyone to suddenly flip a switch and stop feeling sexual attraction to their current "preference" and start feeling sexual attraction to the members of their current "non-preferred" sex?
secondly, while i'm a theologian nor have i committed the bible to memory, those passages in the bible that brush up against the idea of ssa with which i am familiar have all been interpreted in a certain way by some to indicate that God is against homosexuality. however, is it possible that God isn't so much against homosexuality qua homosexuality as he is against homosexuality qua fornication? that is, since traditionally marriages have not really been between two members of the same sex, by definition any sexual activities between homosexuals would be pre-marital sex. there are many passages in the bible where God specifically forbids premarital sex. is it possible that the passages forbidding homosexuality were just another way for God to demonstrate his disapproval of premarital sex?
thirdly, for those who posit both homosexuality is a sin and as such homosexuality must be a personal choice since God would not make any mistakes (and clearly making someone predisposed or even tempted to sin is a mistake!), i would ask why then do you think that God created man such that heterosexual couples would also be sexually attracted to one another prior to marriage?
finally, regardless of whether or not homosexuality is a sin, should we as christians spurn homosexuals or otherwise make them feel unwelcome in the church? if the church is of the belief that homosexuality is a sin (let alone the greatest sin), then shouldn't homosexuals be welcomed (if not the most welcomed) members of the church? after all, aren't the patients that are most in need of the doctor?
as an aside, i've had many homosexual friends in my lifetime. from the time i spent with my gay and lesbian friends, i discovered a couple things. first, homosexuals are just like me except that they happen to be attracted to people of the same sex. second, homosexuals have been marginalized greatly by the mainstream (especially christian) society. third, by being intolerant toward homosexuals, christians are not practicing love toward our fellow man, but rather we are visiting needless hurt and anguish upon them. finally, in showing the same love and acceptance toward my homosexual friends as i do for heterosexual friends, i am not hurting myself; rather, i am practicing the new commandment Jesus gave to his followers--that of loving one another as He loved us.
ultimately, i would urge that we as christians stop worrying about the gender of the person in bed with our friends and we start worrying about whether we are fulfilling Jesus's new commandment.
Comments (24)
this probably won't unstick you, but with SSA, the level of acceptance could be higher. Like person 1 - I'm a glutton and way too big, but I'm working on it. Person 2 - I'm gay and this is my bf.
of course, if person 1 says I'm big and deal with it, then that's kinda the same, so your brother has a good point.
you have your entire sabbatical to get unstuck........haha
i like your entire conversation notes. this does seem to be the church's big hypocrisy issue with the lgbt community (or SSA if you will).
but your questions sort of bother me.
1) Is someone born with SSA or is it a choice?
--> first of all, i don't think anyone is born attracted to anyone! were you attracted to women when you were just 2 days old? i don't think so. just like nobody is *born* obese. people are born with hands. with noses. with eyes (even those change color often within the first 1-2 years). so... i think your question really is... are people born with some type of gene which produces SSA when their attractions surface?, or are people who say they have SSA actually actively fighting society with a the "choice" to deny their true/inert opposite sex attractions? and i think that is offensive. i'm sure the "freedom of choice" may be apparent among some who claim SSA, but i think it's really silly for you to believe the entire SSA (especially those who grew up in the christian church) community has those ssa's because they will them into existence.
2) Regardless of whether scholars and scientists will ever solve the mystery of sexual attraction, how will you respond when the person with the SSA is your own flesh and blood or your best friend since first grade?
--> sure, let's put aside the whole "choice" issue. sorry. but if i find SSA in my own flesh, then i'm a SSA person. and if my best friend since first grade has SSAs, then he/she has them. what do you mean, how will someone respond? will i hate myself? will i hate my friend? honestly, if i have a lot of baggage/expectations/misunderstandings/etc built in me from my life experiences and don't understand SSA to the point i alienate and fear it, then i will require a lot of processing. if i don't have this baggage, then i will be able to live and adjust accordingly much easier, hopefully maintaining a level of respect for myself/my best friend since first grade. is this the type of question/answer you're looking for?
as always, thanks for sharing your thoughts!
hi pastor ken
thanks for your posts. I really appreciate them a lot. Being from the Midwest and a conservative Chinese church, we don't get too many of these discussions or messages.
I was wondering if romans 7 plays a role into this?
@lao_ye_ye - thanks, Lao Ye Ye. I just reread Rom 7 (dang, the Apostle sure wrote some thick stuff!) and the gist to me there seems to be an acknowledgment that we've got a constant battle waging within each of us between sin and God's righteous standards. Only Jesus can resolve and win that war, right? But even though Jesus claims the ultimate victory, we're all still left fighting those battles within us. Church should be a place for all embattled people, yes? But what if various persons no longer are putting up any resistance to the forces of the sin? Is church a place for them? Who's to say, though, that being included in the Body wouldn't eventually bring them to a place of conviction...
In the midst of all this parsing of doctrine and theology, it sort of comes down to who is actually, honestly, part of our churches? Even those battling, say, porn or a heart of unforgiveness--do they believe that our churches are safe and healing places to bring those battles to Christ? If you're going to a Midwest, conservative Chinese church, I seriously doubt it. It's hard enough to have that kind of environment on the Left Coast!
Thanks for commenting.
in response to this:"So if sinners who AREN'T struggling with certain sins are welcomed and allowed to serve throughout the church, why are you changing the standards just because this time it's about people with SSA?"
I guess the first question that you should answer is : As soon as you know somebody is living a double standard life (any kind of sin) and dont feel guilty either struggle with it , did you let them serve and have leadership role in our church?
Let say as soon as you know somebody in our church living together before the sacred ceremonial of a marriage/ or have a second wife or mistress / or ,I dont know, constantly stealing from 7/11 store , would you let them serve or have leadership role in our church?
If you don't, then what your brother said does not applied to you. We are being consistent. I don't think you are responsible for any inconsistency that you don't even know. If you are never informed or know about somebody's frugal lifestyle then how would you know. But when something is so apparent and the congegration start complaining about that particular person, than yes, I would say now you are on stake.
But if you do, then I agree with your brother. I would also feel troubled by our church inconsistency.
in response to this:1) Is someone born with SSA or is it a choice?, and 2) Regardless of whether scholars and scientists will ever solve the mystery of sexual attraction, how will you respond when the person with the SSA is your own flesh and blood or your best friend since first grade?
Pastor Ken, I don't think this question is even valid according to our manual (the Bible). God has been very consistency with His word from OT to NT. He never change his feeling about SSA activity. I don't even think this is even an appropriate question that we should be asking. If there is a 50% chance that SSA is natural, then why our Creator forbid his own creation to do what they are naturally created?" That's why I dont think is even a question for the believer. Maybe I am wrong, but I found those questions is very contradictary to God's Words.
I appreciate your openess to a lot of view , I do, but we have to be brave to accept that SSA behavior is contradicting with the Bible and that is all to it.
If one of my sister is SSA, I will still disagree with her, we have thousand of things that we disagree on anyway since we were little. If I have to add one more thing, it wouldn't hurt our relationship.
@archiwife - Ah, but if your sister were a lesbian, what would be the extent of your relationship with her? Cut her off completely, as if she did not exist? Some would choose that path. Others would look for ways to stay in relationship without giving the impression that her lifestyle is acceptable to God (or you), but that, I believe, is easy to say and hard to practice. How do we hold to biblical convictions while sharing the planet and lives with those who have different convictions? That's still the fundamental question for me, on this issue, and on lots more issues that have nothing to do with sexual attraction, i.e., religion, politics, lifestyles, values, etc.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment. None of us will know what we will actually do until or unless we're confronted with a real, live situation, not a hypothetical. You want to know what would be an even BIGGER challenge? If (speaking again of SSA) it was you or me that felt this way. I'm NOT saying that this would automatically cause us to toss out the apparent biblical guidelines; my point is that it's always lots easier to be clear about matters when we know it will never happen to us. There are some Christian brothers and sisters who are really struggling with SSA. I hope we can create an atmosphere (with the Spirit's empowerment) of healing and hope, even if we believe the Word prevents us from "affirming" a lifestyle built around SSA.
Well, I'm not a theologian like you...
All I really have to say is: We're all sinners; praise God for the blood of Jesus!!
As for your dilemma (and a bunch of my musings)... Your brother identified EBCLA's position as "receiving those struggling with same-sex attraction, with the operative phrase being 'struggling with,'" and this is based on the conviction that "homosexuality is just one outcome of all of human sexuality's being broken" and that "the church is supposed to be a place of God's healing and hope for all broken sinners." I don't see any necessary (unavoidable) inconsistencies with that. I think the question is how consistent do you want your church? Of course, the church is made up of people, so it's not all up to you... How consistently can these people live in relation to those who struggle (or don't struggle) with SSA? I think you're calling your church to live more consistently, so I think it would be safe to say to your brother that we are all works in progress and that although some inconsistency remains, your hope for all to be welcome in the church and to experience the transforming grace of God.
However, I can see some people wanting to justify the inconsistency because they still struggle with accepting people with SSA (as broken people who need the grace of God as much as they do), and I'm not sure if that's what you're looking for. If so, I think you're going to have a hard time convincing your brother... Besides tradition, culture, stereotypes, etc., I think Christians tend to hold sexual sins and the people who commit them at a different level because they are more threatened by them (and for good reason when you're dealing with rapists, child molestors, etc.). Sexuality is difficult to address because it is deeply personal, yet in public conversations, it is largely taboo except in jest or vulgarity. People just seem weirded out by something they hold so precious, but they can't talk about it. I think that's one problem, one that you've been working on. Also contributing to the sense that homosexuals are threatening is that there are groups of homosexuals promoting homosexuality. If there are groups promoting gluttony or materialism, they get considerably less publicity. The church is, in a sense, in arms against the enemy of same-sex marriage promoers, so someone with SSA in the church can feel like an infiltration, thus the response of keeping them at arms length and not allowing them to be fully involved in the church.
What is important to remember and to reinforce is that the doctrine of the church will not change, and sin will be sin. I think it as important to preach against persistent sins such as materialism and gluttony in the church as it is homosexuality. Let the Spirit of God convict who he will. If someone comes into the church flagrantly promoting homosexual practices, I would expect an unwelcome response from the church, just as I would expect the church to refuse to embrace a get-rich-quick hedonist. It's a consistent response. I think what is key in this situation is to get to know the person with SSA. Most people expect homosexuals to oppose the church and thus refuse to welcome them. Getting to know a person with SSA may reveal someone who is genuinely searching for God and who will not oppose the church. People who desire to be part of the body without challenging the beliefs and positions of the church should be welcomed to participate in the life of the church along with the rest of us sinners.
1 Cor. 5 is instructive. We should have a category for public, scandalous sins that should not be tolerated in the church, because it compromises our witness for the Gospel. To allow someone to profess to be a Christian, while living in such scandalous sin, would be to defame the Gospel. This is not to say that Christians don't sin. No, all of us do struggle with sin, and have unrepentant sin in our lives. But my pride or gluttony or impatience or etc... is of a different kind according to human standards than homosexuality, or a man sleeping with his father's wife, i.e. something that is publicly contradictory to the Gospel. 1 Cor. 5 doesn't answer all questions, but it gives us a starting point in thinking about the differences between sins (in a human sense) and how we are to deal with them differently and appropriately. Blessings,
I'm not a lawyer, just a believer. I'm not to judge people in the end and not to make ultimate decisions now, but having a conservative view and not too liberal for certain views I feel is best since I don't make the ultimate decision and bottom line is why do you need to try to justify a gray area? Is it too much of sacrifice or better yet an inconvenience to change ourselves and not believe the whole truth which the bible clearly states (applied for those who are believers and who are "struggling w/ SSA")?
I am by no means perfect, I do struggle, but by asking forgiveness, identifying my sin and through God's guidance and time, I'm able to slowly "wean" myself from the sin. It's like a body shock if you jump into a cold pool, you freeze up and stay in a state of suspension and can't change you pose (in the initial shock). But as God helps you to warm up, you are able to change.
Anyways you just lost a battle not the war, keep soldiering on brother. Hope your mom is doing better. We are still praying for her at HCF.
Blessings.
I too am from a "conservative" Chinese church in the midwest and wanted to thank you for your posts. First off, I wanted to express my appreciation for your willingness to put yourself out on a limb and while some of your ideas may be slightly left of my own (I hope you excuse my description
), I praise God that there is an air of open and civil discussion about these very complex social issues that you're advocating. Its about time that the Church stepped up to the plate and reclaimed the call to spread the transforming influence of the Gospel back into the public square.
In any case, I've been reading all the responses you've gotten in your past few blogs about this subject and I hope I won't be rehashing old ideas but I wanted to add my ten cents on these topics...
I am of the conviction that homosexuality is no worse a sin than fornication or adultery (or incest or polygamy). However, until someone can convince me through Scripture and/or sound logic otherwise, I do believe homosexuality is still a sin none-the-less. As your brother correctly points out that Christians can be inconsistent and outright hypocritical in their singling out how they treat homosexual sin, and homosexual sinners in particular, I believe it is more of an indictment on how lax the Church has become in turning a blind eye on sin in general. In effect, we should correct and admonish every sinner in love, no matter what particular sin they might struggle with, and to not do so would be to deny the Church one of its primary duties of sanctifying Christians. Now I'm not advocating a Church with a culture of judgemental or legalism by any means. Of course we are to freely welcome all sinners into the Church but to affirm their sin is a catastrophe in my view and a "watering down" of the Gospel into nothing more a feel good message with no power to transform any one, much less a whole world.
Now I would counter your brothers rhetorical questions with my own: "What if someone was openly and flagrantly having sexual relations before marriage going to your church, even in positions of leadership? What if they AREN'T struggling with this, it doesn't bother them, they don't spend any time fretting over it?" Obviously, there are some sins that can tear a church apart worse than others.
I also appreciate the one response that spoke of the dangers of Postmodern ideas creeping into "Biblical Christianity." While I too am slightly wary of the PM/Emergent Church phenomena, I do recognize that there are some very valid critiques of conservative evangelicals they are trying to address and remedy (I just personally think they in effect are throwing the proverbial baby out with the bath water in their erring on the other extreme). So in this case, I would just like to caution everyone that open and civil dialogue is great and commendable and desperately needed, but not to lose sight of the fact that we need to dialogue with a purpose. We are called to be a salt and light not only in action and deed, but in mind and thought in defending the unchanging Truth (ie, the Word).
Especially as this discussion on SSA was a conversation amongst Christians it seems (I don't presume to have heard the entire context), we need to always align our lives to Scripture and not align Scripture to how we feel it would best fit our own lives or society no matter how personal or painful. So in any dialogue, we need to always challenge our Brothers and Sisters in Christ in the light of Scripture as it is the only firm rock upon which our decisions and judgements can be based upon, especially one as charged as homosexuality. By no means am I accusing anyone of crossing this line per se (actually far from it), its just a caveat and warning I wanted to bring up sooner than later.
We are called to preach the Gospel faithfully. Not that we're not intentional on how to do so in love and with all sensitivity, but if we do, its only natural that people would be stretched and challenged (and maybe even offended but hopefully only until the Holy Spirit whips them into shape
). Thank you for doing this Pastor Ken.
Sorry, I didn't mean to ramble this long so I'll stop now. God bless!
Hi PK,
sounds like your brother is in the right profession. However, standing up for big corporations against consumers is not something I would be proud of (ever see a Renault on the road anymore?). But, I digress.
In response to your questions, my opinion is :
1) both. Many people are born w/ the imbalance and yes, though we are born perfect in God's eyes, many in society and the Bible would consider them imperfect. Transgenders face this dilemma from birth. For many others, it is a choice.
2) I would treat a friend or relative w/ SSA the same as I would treat all my other friends and relatives who have sins but are better able to hide them. We are all sinners and who are we to say which sins are acceptable and which are not? It is because of the blood of Christ that God forgives us. If we come to Christ and ask forgiveness then it will be up to him on our judgement day whether we will be forgiven or not. We all 'struggle' with our sins. We live with them daily. For many of us, it's an addiction. To distinguish between sins that are allowed to come through the doors of God is no different than distinguishing between colors of skin in my opinion. I know EBCLA doesn't operate that way.
I think 'struggling' is the wrong term to use. Perhaps more in line would be 'acknowledging your sins, bringing your sins to the cross, and asking for forgiveness' .
Good luck and I hope you enjoyed the article I left you in your inbox at church.
Hey PK,
just came across some info you may be interested in. Filmmaker Daniel Karslake made a video called "For the Bible tells me so" which deals with this very issue. There's a short interview of him on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6Lpc4s5Yk0 and you can see where it is playing locally: http://firstrunfeatures.com/forthebible_playdates.html
Hey PK
First of all, great post! I always appreciate your honesty and openness through this blog.
I went to SFSU for college. Imagine being part of a college fellowship, the only college fellowship on the campus for that matter, in what is often considered the lgbt capitol of the U.S. if not beyond that. My freshmen year, I had multiple encounters with dorm mates who were gay and lesbian. We would be friends first and then I would find out their sexual orientation... and sometime around there, they would find out that I'm "religious." I think there were as many negative stereotypes filling their minds about me and Christianity and there was filling my mind about their lifestyle. I think the church has misrepresented Jesus and the love of God to this community. We would have conversations, and all I could really tell them is that I had friends in high school that smoked out daily (mj) and drank every weekend. I didn't agree with their lifestyle, but I still loved them. I would still do anything to help them in a time of need, and i would still hang out with them as much as I would any friend... just not always when they were doing things that I didn't necessarily agree with. And my high school friends as well as my gay friends understood and respected that... just like some of them didn't want to come to church with me, I didn't want to go smoke out, or hit up gay bars every weekend. We were still good friends. So in response to your second question- if it were flesh and blood... or my best friend from first grade... I would continue to love them as I would anybody else. I wouldn't hide my feelings or thoughts about the subject if it were asked, but at the same time I wouldn't be constantly condemning and preaching to them every second of every day. Just think about Jesus and the rich young man. He stated the truth and let him chew on it. Didn't follow after him forcing him to believe and repent. He presented the information and if asked again, he would say the same thing, but then he left the decision up to the rich young man. He spoke the truth in love and not in condemnation. It is a different approach for those outside of the church and those inside the church.
In regards to SSA within the church... I think it's important to not confuse what the church believes with how the church acts. I know that the two should be the same... but the church is run by man, who is fallible, and so the church makes mistakes... and sometimes years and years of church culture can sometimes overrule the church doing the right thing. Look at Israel and how their culture got in the way of what the original purpose of so many of their practices were. I'm reading and rereading and rereading again, a great book called, "The Intelligent Church" by steve chalke. It's mind blowing. One of the chapters is says, an intelligent church is a messy church. Look at the author and perfector of our faith. Jesus kept in his presence a tax collector, simple fishermen, someone that would deny him three times, someone that would doubt him, and even someone that would betray him. Not only did he keep them around him, but he served them... loved them... ate with them... took the position of a humble servant and washed their feet. He loved the prostitutes and the samaritans (which was culturally unacceptable). He didn't just surround himself with "righteousness" and there were people in his original discipleship group that had issues.
In terms of church, people will always bring up 1 Tim 3 in this conversation. They say this verse gives rules for leaders and shows the restrictions and limitations. But beyond that, this verse also shows that there are people with these problems in the church. Paul wouldn't have written this to Timothy if there weren't people that were drunks, materialistic, and adulterers INSIDE of the church. This was written to the church because the church was messy. They loved everyone... the believers, the sinners, and even more so, the people who (whether they believed or not) were struggling with sin.
The American church has really strayed from it's roots of compassion and has fallen into a foundation of fundamentalism and self-righteousness- which is what we see as the major flaws of the pharisees when we study the new testament.
It's a really hard topic, and one that is so hard to balance what we believe and how we live. But I think that we have to believe and live the truth of God 100% and we have to love with God's love 100%, and if our focus is both on loving God (and his truth) and loving others as we've been commanded, then we'll be well within God's plan for the church.
Thanks for the great thought provoking questions PK. Keep up the great blogging. God bless.Tim
After confessing my struggle with porn and my almost adultery to my fellow leaders at my church, I was not surprised that the pastor took me off the leadership team. I willingly stepped off of my responsibility and put my effort into my marriage. I had made progress but porn was still a struggle for me. Months later, I was hurt by the "updated" leadership contract which required the leaders to avoid sexual sins specifically without mentioning any other sins. I couldn't help but feel that it was a personal attack and that I had no room for mistakes because my sin is worse than everyone else's sin.
I chose not to make a big deal about the contract because I understood the importance of purity among the church leaders. However, I wonder if the rest of the leaders felt okay about their sins because they were not listed on the contract.
So, even though I agree that the church shouldn't "affirm" a lifestyle with sexual sins including SSA, I feel the church often target these people and cut them off quickly. I think we all need to put more effort into dealing with our own sins, whatever they are, before we go and judge others.
@sedaqah -
I am fortunate to say that I learned to love my sister unconditionally. We fought with our fist since we were 5, we are so different in so many different ways. When we were little, we would solve it with anger and most of the time my dad would take care of it for me LOL . Sorry, but doesn't all of us have sin?
Anyways, now that we are "grown up" , we are more accepting. We are still very different in values and believe in so many ways. She doesn't go to the church anymore and don't ask me why. We had some confrontation about a lot idea, but we still love each other. Last week she told me that she doesn't want to meet with me for the whole next year (I don't know whether this come out from an anger or what). I said (silently), awh yeah right. I was right, she is going to meet me this weekend. We can't just stay away from each other. I know how much it would hurt me to cut off my sister from my life. I guess at every end of our weary confrontation, we understand that it is impossible to say that "to love is to agree". So if eventhough she is a lesbian, I don't think I can stop loving her.
In parallel to our discussion, isn't it working the same way? it is almost impossible to agree to what SSA believe or with anybody but it is very possible to welcome and love SSA or anybody without agreeing and confirming. Just like loving any relative's who may disagree with our value. I remember one of the SSA presenter, always said "but if you say you love me then why you said who I am is a sin". Isn't that what we do everyday, sinning and forgiving?
I guess from all my gibberish , I come to an understanding that only by remembering God's grace in my life and by reminding myself of my own brokeness, I can love and accept my christian bro and sister who are SSA or any other people who I disagree with.
Ken
Great post! If a close friend or relative were to share that they were struggling with SSA I would begin by taking off my theologian hat and I would sit with them as a friend. I would want to respect their struggle and their experience and I would listen to what it is like to be a person who struggles with SSA. While at grad school one of my favorite instructors was one of key proponents for the legalization of gay marriage. She was sensitive about not pressing the cause in the classroom, and her honesty and character did much to show me that as a heterosexual evangelical Christian I was insulated from the struggles of LGBT persons. It was easy for me to see how insulting it was to presume to define a whole group of people with slogans like "hate the sin and love the sinner". Once I got knocked off my high horse I concluded that it would be a whole lot less insulting for me to begin any dialogue with listening. I learned a lot about the pain of struggling with SSA from your conversation with Gary and Marian. You have shown a great deal of sensitivity and courage by continuing this conversation--not to mention facing Rob at 1:15 am/ Thanks for keeping it on the table.
Dave
Why is it that some sins are more acceptable in the church than others? Sin is sin right? SSA and other sexual sins are more taboo in society at large, but, why, as Christians, should we reflect society in that way? Aren't we to be different? Why is it that we must ask the question of whether or not we should accept a sinner who struggles with those particular sins into the church and how much we should accept them? It seems that there are some sins that are acceptable and few people seem to be putting up much of a fight to overcome them, sins such as being judgmental and apathetic. Which sins are more poisonous to the body, to people in general? I would say that being judgmental is worse than having SSA. Yes, SSA is contrary to God's will for us. Being judgmental says, I'm better than you for these reasons...to me, that seems more dangerous to the church and more dangerous to society.
@dqami - thanks, I saw this movie already. It's very well done and features Rev. Dr. Mel White a great deal, one of the leading evangelical theological voices on this issue from an openly gay POV. Because he's openly gay (and not struggling), his arguments however compelling hermeneutically, have a self-validating ring to them. In fact, let me go out on a limb and say that proponents of both extremes on this issue who are arguing from Scripture typically have "non-falsifiable" positions. In other words, both sides are so convinced of the "rightness" of their respective positions that no biblical evidence to the contrary would be taken seriously. It's sort of like Creationists who are promoting Intelligent Design as a scientific theory. Most serious scientists (even some Xn ones) immediately remark that I.D. proponents would NEVER embrace evidence that pointed to the NON existence of God. That's why I believe that our upcoming short film on the May 10th Conversation is so unique and so needed. There will never be a day when everyone agrees with everyone else's convictions, so we'd better find ways to share this planet!
hi PK! it's been encouraging to read through your thoughts as you've been processing this touchy subject. I have a couple of close homosexual Christian friends, and it's been disheartening to find wisdom and guidance from pastors and Christians who have never had a gay friend. I know it's important to understand the theological basis for what we believe, but it seems like in the midst of all the nitpicking, we forget to simply see people as valuable human beings regardless of their sexual orientation. Your willingness to dialogue about this gives me hope that one day Christians will be known by their love.
I would start with the same disclaimer that I am no theologian, and I am no lawyer either. But I think the whole objection there is around three issues.
First issue is the “struggling with” (as in “the operative phrase being 'struggling with.' However, if someone with same-sex attraction was NOT struggling with this, was NOT convinced that this orientation was contrary to God's Word and God's specific will for him/her, then you would have to draw the line there.”)
I think we muddle the issue when we bring the feeling “struggling with” into the context. Christians are not people who are just struggling with sins. (That is true, but Christians are more than just that). In reality, struggling or not becomes irrelevant. I am no lawyer, but from what I understand, if a person got pull over by a cop, it is irrelevant if the driver was struggling with his drinking problem or not. The operative phrase is that the driving privilege is for all law abiding citizen.
This leads to the second issue in defining the church as “a place of God's healing and hope for all broken sinners”. (Once again it is true, but the Church is more than just that). Using the “driving privilege is for all law abiding citizen” concept again, we could understand that the community of Jesus is a community of people who recognize the authority of God’s Word on their life. Someone may not struggle with materials or gluttony for a while, but when the Holy Spirit illuminates God’s Word in that area of their lives, they would start considering about how to obey what God asks of them. I may drive around with my 7 years old kid in the front seat all the time without any “struggling” all year long. But when a police officer in my neighborhood pulls me over and told me that only kids 12 years and older should ride shotgun, I should seriously consider abiding that law. If I choose to ignore his warning, the next time I would deserve a ticket. If I keep it up and ignore all court order, I may lose my license, all because I am not willing to be a law-abiding citizen.
Similarly, churches may choose to accept and love a homosexual in their midst. But what about the one who start flirting with other people in the church? How about influencing kids? How about when they start hurting the community?
The third misconception is that all sins should be treated the same (1 John 5:16-17 did not say "sin is sin"). Having a person committed gluttony in leadership is entirely different than having a person committed adultery in leadership. There are qualifications God’s Word demanded in leadership for elders and deacons. We could debate whether “husband of one wife” would mean married men only, or does it includes purity in single women. But to make it include just any homosexuals is pushing it too far.
I am sure that even Rob’s church, despite they are welcoming and affirming homosexuals, they are not going to condone promiscuous homosexuals to hold leadership positions either. They are also drawing a line somewhere (and so they are not completely all embracing either).
We all draw lines. The question is, “what is the ruler of our lines?”
Hello! Thx for the post. I just wonder, does Rob or his church believe homosexuality is a sin? I just wanted to know when a church says affirming of SSA, does it mean they believe that it is not a sin? Thanks!
I am not a conservative evangelical and worrying what is and is not sin matters little to me. The gospel is about liberty from sin so I would think that Christians should spend more time fighting against more harmful behavior than whether some one is attracted to someone of the same sex.
p
hi pastor ken,
i know i'm jumping into this convo a little late (i just found out you had a blog--i've only just recently returned to the sgv after having been away from the area for quite a number of years), but i wanted to put in my 2 pennies.
first, for those heterosexual folks who think that sexual orientation is a matter of mere choice, i would suggest that they try to view members of the same sex with attraction. as a heterosexual male with many male friends, i find that i just cannot find any sexual attraction toward them, or any other males for that matter. on the other hand, i have and do feel sexual attraction to females. while i can't say that i've actively tried to flip a switch such that i would become sexually attracted to other males, i can say that even within that hypothetical construct (trying to feel sexual attraction toward other males), i have been unable to find myself sexually attracted to other males. thus, i would question whether it is possible for anyone to suddenly flip a switch and stop feeling sexual attraction to their current "preference" and start feeling sexual attraction to the members of their current "non-preferred" sex?
secondly, while i'm a theologian nor have i committed the bible to memory, those passages in the bible that brush up against the idea of ssa with which i am familiar have all been interpreted in a certain way by some to indicate that God is against homosexuality. however, is it possible that God isn't so much against homosexuality qua homosexuality as he is against homosexuality qua fornication? that is, since traditionally marriages have not really been between two members of the same sex, by definition any sexual activities between homosexuals would be pre-marital sex. there are many passages in the bible where God specifically forbids premarital sex. is it possible that the passages forbidding homosexuality were just another way for God to demonstrate his disapproval of premarital sex?
thirdly, for those who posit both homosexuality is a sin and as such homosexuality must be a personal choice since God would not make any mistakes (and clearly making someone predisposed or even tempted to sin is a mistake!), i would ask why then do you think that God created man such that heterosexual couples would also be sexually attracted to one another prior to marriage?
finally, regardless of whether or not homosexuality is a sin, should we as christians spurn homosexuals or otherwise make them feel unwelcome in the church? if the church is of the belief that homosexuality is a sin (let alone the greatest sin), then shouldn't homosexuals be welcomed (if not the most welcomed) members of the church? after all, aren't the patients that are most in need of the doctor?
as an aside, i've had many homosexual friends in my lifetime. from the time i spent with my gay and lesbian friends, i discovered a couple things. first, homosexuals are just like me except that they happen to be attracted to people of the same sex. second, homosexuals have been marginalized greatly by the mainstream (especially christian) society. third, by being intolerant toward homosexuals, christians are not practicing love toward our fellow man, but rather we are visiting needless hurt and anguish upon them. finally, in showing the same love and acceptance toward my homosexual friends as i do for heterosexual friends, i am not hurting myself; rather, i am practicing the new commandment Jesus gave to his followers--that of loving one another as He loved us.
ultimately, i would urge that we as christians stop worrying about the gender of the person in bed with our friends and we start worrying about whether we are fulfilling Jesus's new commandment.