"Can I Be Gay and Be a Christian?"

This is a question that a friend of mine asked me not long ago. That friend happens to be a Christian and struggles with same-sex attraction, so I knew this question was not asked out of a desire for theological debate, but from a place of deep personal turmoil. Back in the 90's during Bill Clinton's scandal with Monica Lewinski, in answer to a grand jury question about whether there "is no sex of any kind" between himself and Ms. Lewisnki as his legal counsel had stated, then-president Clinton famously answered, "That depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." Of course, that was a cop-out, a lawyer's trick to hide his guilt. But regarding my friend's question, the answer really does depend on what your definition of "to be" is.

Here's the problem: western culture tells people that if they experience a sexual attraction towards the same sex that they "are gay" (or at least bi-sexual, queer, etc.). Modern society defines a person's identity based on their feelings—especially sexual feelings—however consistent or inconsistent those feelings may be. The sad part is that the Christian Church has pretty much swallowed this definition without thinking twice. We have taken up secular culture's belief that what we "feel" is the truest part of who we are. So my response to my friend who asked me this question was that, just because you experience same-sex attraction, that doesn't mean you "are gay". You have the wrong definition of "is".

The book of James states, "...each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death." (Jas. 1:14-15) We have bought into the current lie that to feel is to be, that our feelings define us. But do they? And if so, which feelings define us? After all, we feel many conflicting things throughout the day: from a desire to murder our jerk-of-a-boss (perhaps multiple times over) to a desire to sacrifice our own comfort and resources in order to help someone who is down on their luck. But how can these conflicting feelings simultaneously define who we are? Perhaps James has greater insight than we imagine when he relegates our feelings to simply this: a choice that is set before us, a temptation.

The story of Christ's life also tells us that He was tempted to abandon the Father's plan and short-cut His way to glory. In the desert when He had not eaten for forty days and Satan came tempting Him to turn stones to bread, surely He "felt an attraction" to that option. After all, He was not only the Son of God, but also 100% human and He was hungry! But that's the point of temptation—if there is no attraction, there is no temptation. And yet, temptation is also not the same thing as sin. This is clear from the life of the Savior who, though He was tempted in every way as we are, remained sinless. Let me draw the conclusion here as clearly as possible: your temptation does not define you.

Sadly, we Christians have shot ourselves in the foot by adopting the culture's terms and definitions. The Bible says that our identity is not defined by our various temptations, but by our position in Christ. We have been made children of God through faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus. That is the truest thing about us. Will we experience temptations that contradict God's will for our lives? Many. But that does not define us; Christ does.

So in answer to my friend's original question, "Can you be gay and a Christian?", that depends on if you've bought into the culture's definitions or not. If we mean, "Can a person be born-again and experience regular temptation in the form of same-sex attraction?", the answer is, "yes!" In the exact same way, we can be born-again and experience regular temptation towards any number of sins. Homosexuality is not in some completely different category. All sin is sin. Any temptation is temptation. But none of it defines us as Christians. Neither our battles with it, nor even our failures.

Even asking the question in the way my friend did shows that the issue has been muddled for many of us by an unbiblical way of thinking. At first it would seem that the question is about whether we can struggle with a particular sin and still be saved—which, yes, we can and do and will until we see Christ face to face and our entire nature is transformed into His glorious image. But in reality, it is a question of identity, of definition. Can you "be" gay and "be" a Christian? No. That is to say, your primary identity can only be defined by one thing, and that is either by the Son of God who has loved you and made you His own or by the feelings of temptation that your flesh and the devil conspire to tell you is who you are. That's because they want you to doubt who the grace of God has made you—His child. Rooting our identity in sin (of whatever form) is incompatible with our identity in Christ. So for those Christians like my friend who who have felt condemned days without count, for those who have doubted if they can actually be saved because they deal with same-sex attraction—rejoice! It is your temptation, but it is not who you are! The truest thing about you is not the temptation you struggle with—that is just a fading shadow. Rather, your identity is who Jesus has made you by His grace: a child of God. In the words of Paul the Apostle, "So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me." (Rom. 7:17) This is no cop-out. It is a vital recognition of who we are in Christ, regardless of the temptation we struggle with. Our truest self is the one that Jesus has created anew in His own image.

   

for the love of gays

perhaps you caught the latest public plea for the legalization of gay marriage in the united states. if not, you can read the full text/watch the video of MSNBC news anchor keith olbermann here. these are some highlights from his impassioned plea for gay marriage and mourning the passing of proposition 8 in california:

"If you voted for this Proposition [against gay marriage] ... Why does this matter to you? What is it to you? ... these people over here want the same chance at permanence and happiness that is your option. They don't want to deny you yours. They don't want to take anything away from you. They want what you want—a chance to be a little less alone in the world... What is this, to you? Nobody is asking you to embrace their expression of love. But don't you, as human beings, have to embrace... that love? The world is barren enough. It is stacked against love... tell me how you can believe both that statement and another statement, another one which reads only "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

his plea certainly asks a number of good questions. i really only began thinking about them because my friend josh posted this video on his blog with some comment. the following are excerpts from my comment on his post and on this video/transcript:

now, as for olbermann’s commentary ... i don’t live in america, so i’ve not been subjected to whatever prop 8 adds were run, picket lines, etc. i hope this allows me to look at it with less of the possible cultural bias that i might have living in the states (or ca particularly). i’d also like to think that as someone who used to BE bi-sexual (before i met Jesus), i could be less biased than maybe someone who’s been straight from day one.

my first question is, on what ideological basis is the whole idea of gay marriage being put forward?

olbermann goes off about how this issue is all about giving love a chance, etc. without questioning his definition of love (yet), how does not allowing people to marry hinder love? throughout much of history there have been situations where certain classes or races were disallowed to marry by the ruling class, or only with some heinous condition (anybody remember braveheart? :). in such cases, those people have always simply been content to be married in the eyes of God, ignoring the state because it was unjust. and i guarantee you that the slaves who were only married in God’s eyes never loved each other less than the white couples who were married legally. this is not a question of love. sorry, olbermann. (btw, that is NOT to compare the situation with slaves being disallowed marriage and gays not being granted “marriage”. the two are entirely different for reasons i’ll get to.) and we must be able to see that it is NOT even about legal rights (as olbermann highlights), since many states and politicians have offered “civil unions” which give the same legal rights without the title of marriage. what then is this ideological hurdle of “marriage” that many in the gay community are so intent on jumping? here is where we get back to the root: we cannot talk of marriage without talking of God. as olbermann himself brings “the creator” into his reasoning, i’ll assume its fair game in the discussion. but just for a moment, let take the atheist/darwinist approach:

is there a basis for homosexual marriage on a purely humanist/evolutionist level? certainly not. richard dawkins once said that the purpose of life, if there is a purpose, is to pass on one’s genes. the homosexual automatically by his choice rules himself out of the “survival of the fittest” by his behavior which, if observed by a darwinist in an animal, might simply be described as an anomaly, mutation, self-destroying defect, etc. that sounds really harsh, i know. fortunately i’m not an atheist and my worldview doesn’t constrain me to view homosexuals as any less “worthy” of survival than i am. but it should be clear that there is NO ground in any purely humanistic, sociological approach that would justify gay marriage. it is darwinistically irresponsible, socialogically self-destructive.

so, we HAVE to return to the idea of God. the declaration of independence states: “all men are created equal”. but we sometimes forget the context of the following words, “that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” ANY appeal to ANY human rights must be an appeal TO God and not in spite of Him or against Him. without God there are no “rights”, only brute force (aka, survival of the fittest). but it is then a false dichotomy to appeal to God for the rights of men and then ignore or slander God for the other moral standards He gives. (not to get into the whole “were the founding fathers deists?” discussion, but no matter what, we could at LEAST without even studying the question confine their concept of the divine to the monotheistic religions, as there is not One Creator in the eastern religions, etc. all of said monotheistic religions which mark homosexuality as sin.) so, if for any rights is it necessary to appeal to God, how then shall we define the application of those rights by turning away from Him?

on the idea of "if marriage is essentially religious, why should the gov’t have a say at all?" because marriage is a covenant which was established by God for ALL humanity. it is not that the government is to dictate to the people what marriage is, it is that God is to dictate to the government (and hence, the people) what marriage is. this is (as i think you all know) defined in the Genesis account (which again, all 3 major monotheistic religions accept) as “a man… shall cling to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” that simple phrase really defines the terms of marriage: monogamous (sorry mormons ;), heterosexual, adults (the word for wife is woman in hebrew, not girl), permanent (becoming one).

again, it is impossible and dishonest to try to extract rights from the Creator while ignoring His definition of marriage. here’s the thing: if we deem it acceptable to ignore God’s definition of marriage in legalizing “gay marriage”, why stop there? why not legalize polygamy? i mean, why limit their freedom? they’re consenting adults after all! why not legalize incestual marriage for consenting adults? why not polygamous, gay, incestual marriages? the problem is, if we deny God the right to draw the line, NO ONE can. God has given us rights, but they are derivative to the rights He has as Creator (one of which is to dictate to us what is good and right…. including the definition of a right marriage).

what is the driving force for “gay marriage” then, if not for legal privileges? are they happy to just “be married in God’s eyes?” no. then is the accusation true that there is an attempt to “re-define marriage”? i don’t think that’s the ultimate goal. any re-definition of marriage (not of unjust laws of men, but of the definition from God who established marriage) is an attempt to re-define God Himself. it is to make God in our own image. to make Him subservient to our decisions. to make ourselves the Lord. THAT is why this issue is such a big deal to people who are NOT gay and don't have close gay friends. THAT is why olbermann is practically in tears, because if he can persuade people to push through gay marriage, he will have (in his mind) re-defined God.

back to olbermann’s idea of “why do we have to stamp out love?” this is how i define love: love is seeking what is best for the other, not for myself. one of the most unloving things one can do is allow a person to continue unchallenged in sin. worse than that is justifying another person’s sin. proverbs says, “faithful are wounds from a friend, but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.” true love will not justify sin in a friend’s life. hence, olbermann is not actually talking about loving homosexuals and allowing them to love. he is talking about being a coward and “kissing deceitfully”, that is, doing what’s pleasant and nicest, not what’s best for a person (anyone with kids ought to know what i’m talking about.) allowing someone to think that their sin is right is NOT love, it is hate, no matter how nice it might look. therefore, what he is promoting in the long run is that we hate gays. personally, it is because i love those who are in homosexual life styles (and have empathy towards them) that i oppose “gay marriage”, a step which would only be a lie to them that their sin is acceptable to God. i’d much rather have them and keith olbermann think i’m “stamping out love” and actually love our gay friends, than lie to them in the name of nicety and actually be hating them. because i would want others to speak to me honestly about some sin that i held and thought was acceptable. that is what i would have "others do to me." THAT is what it is TO me. it is because of my love for the gay community that i oppose gay marriage.

“how can you talk so categorically about homosexual marriage being sin?” easy, because its a discussion about marriage in the first place, which is necessarily a discussion about God. its like if someone said, “let’s make easter the optional celebration of the resurrection of Christ or the founding of Playboy”. or “let’s make Ramadan the celebration of the people vs. larry flint trial.” again, one can’t talk about marriage without talking about something that is God’s ground. if you don’t like easter, don’t celebrate. if you don’t wanna be muslim, don’t fast on ramadan. congratulate heffner and flint all you want, but don’t call it easter. if you don’t want to be in an adult, monogamous, heterosexual, permanent union, the laws of america grant you that right, but don’t try to call it marriage.

as a final note, i will say (even NOT having seen the adds for prop 8) that i’m sure some of them were very condescending and bitter, etc. sadly, i've met too many christians with really angry attitudes towards homosexuals. THAT is not love, and hence not something Jesus would approve of. i am convinced that as Christians, we ought to love and pray for and practically serve and do good to homosexuals who are in our families, among our friends, at work, etc. JUST as zealously as we oppose gay marriage. again, we MUST remember that opposing gay marriage is actually being FOR people who are gay, seeking their good (not to oppress them), in turning them from sin to the Creator who made them and made marriage. it is for the love of gays.

can the TV get you pregnant?

apparently, the answer is yes. recently a study was done of teens and their TV watching habits which stated:

"In the final analysis, teens who had watched the most sexual content on television during the three-year study period were twice as likely to have been involved in a pregnancy as teens with the lowest levels of exposure...TV-watching was strongly connected with teen pregnancy"

the article quoted the study's lead author, giving the only humorous part of the results: “We were surprised to find this link.” really? Jesus said:

"The lamp of the body is the eye. Therefore, when your eye is good, your whole body also is full of light. But when your eye is bad, your body also is full of darkness."

surprising... Jesus knew what He was talking about! we think that we can watch whatever we want and it doesn't affect us. even as believers, we justify it thinking we are "just enjoying our Christian freedom" and "its not like i'm gonna do that". not so. Jesus stated the tie between what we take in our eyes (and ears) and what comes out of our lives a long time ago and now modern sociologists have vindicated His truth with statistical studies (why is it that statistics often convince us better than God's Word?) so, next time you get ready to flip on "friends" or "sex in the city" (two shows specifically listed by the study), make sure you've got your chastity belt strapped on tight... or, better yet, consider what effect your eye will have on your body and use that remote.