sorry, al.

10 Aug

‘We have demonstrated our own form of homophobia — not in the way that activists have used that word, but in the sense that we have been afraid to face this issue where it is most difficult . . . face to face.’ –al mohler (see his full post here)

hate to break it to you al, but i don’t think the major issue in the church is NOT taking a stand against gay sex.  we seem to be pretty good at that one.

too good.

youth pastors across the nation do really amazing gay impressions.  when youth group  students think something is ‘lame’ or ‘stupid,’ nearly every one declares boisterously, ‘that’s so GAY.’  christians write their senators and pastors preach from their bully pulpits about the dangers of same sex marriage, and how the ‘next step’ is bestiality.  churches picket gay pride parades with warnings of hell fire.  mark driscoll invites stories of effeminate worship leaders, and hundreds — literally, hundreds — flock to comment on the status.  ‘haha, he had a lisp.’  ‘he wore tight jeans.’  ‘he had no place leading worship in the house of God.’

no, the problem isn’t that christians are unclear on their moral standing regarding homosexuality.  the problem is we’ve been too clear.

rather than circling the wagons, digging trenches and drawing lines in the sand telling the world that we’re AGAINST gay sex/marriage/relationships (which, by the way, translates to being AGAINST gay people – for many, orientation = identity), perhaps it would better serve our task of reconciliation to shut up and LOVE PEOPLE.

perhaps the form of homophobia that plagues the church is that we’re afraid to engage and love the gay community the way that jesus would (and does).  i wonder what would happen if we did?


6 Responses to “sorry, al.”

  1. Daniel J. Fick August 10, 2011 at 8:37 PM #

    I did not write Mohler’s article, so I cannot speak from a first-person perspective, however, it appears that you have misunderstood Mohler’s quoted paragraph. You discuss snide comments and hate-mongering; nowhere that I’ve read indicates that Mohler is denying this. Moreover, it appears that Mohler is affirming our failures as E/evangelicals regarding our relationships with, and to, homosexuals.

    With that said, I think my FB points stands…Instead of commenting on Mohler’s article (which is a fairly moderate piece), perhaps you should heed your own advice that was directed to Mohler.

  2. Derek B August 11, 2011 at 2:18 AM #

    I’m kinda at a dilemma point with this. I know that, according to the Bible, homosexuality is a sin. I know that it’s covered by the blood of Christ the same as any other sin would be. So why do we treat homosexuality as if it’s something bigger than the other sins? We don’t protest as loudly about other sins. However, is it wrong to state that as Christians, we disagree that homosexuality is not morally wrong? Jesus himself let people know the error of their ways, but we also must keep in mind that the very people he often corrected were the “righteous” ones who thought they were doing what God wanted (what a run-on!). It’s a rather tight line we as Christians must walk such that we do not appear to accept homosexuality as morally right, but that we also do not turn the sin of homosexuality into the identifying trait of a person that (most likely) needs Jesus Christ’s love and salvation… If we are turning people away from Christ, I feel we are doing the most harm than if we just kept our mouths shut about what we yell is so morally wrong and defiling. In fact, I’m not entirely sure how homosexuality in the secular world affects Christians and why they are so offended by the thought of it. While it surely isn’t proper for a professing Christian to live a openly homosexual life, a non-Christian leading an openly homosexual life is and should not be a threat to us if we are truly founded in our faith.

    • the WayWard follower August 11, 2011 at 9:11 AM #

      thanks for sharing, derek. i think part of the problem lies in our apparent inability to trust God; by this, i mean that western evangelicals tend to have a knack for ‘protesting sin’ (to be sure, some more than others… with abortion and the gay community at the top of the list). but this begs the question, since we’re supposed to be following christ, what sins did jesus protest?

      he talked about hypocrisy, pride, violence, heart issues, et cetera. for those who needed his love, as i study the gospels, it looks like he just LOVED THEM. sat and ate dinner with them. drank with them. invited them over, and came over when they invited him (which speaks volumes that they’d WANT him around — quite a contradiction to the reputation of most ‘christians’ in the gay community–we’re understandably not on the dinner invite list).

      as jesus said about gay people, ‘ .’

      • Jim Fisher August 11, 2011 at 11:31 AM #

        What I don’t get is of all the behaviors outside of the norm established in Genesis 2, why do we single one out and skip right over divorce, sex outside of marriage, adulterous thought, etc? The answer, of course, is that we are all guilty of the others. Let’s drop the finger pointing, point all four fingers at ourselves and starting loving each other as Christ loves us.

  3. the WayWard follower August 11, 2011 at 12:19 PM #

    not only that, jim, but there are behaviors endorsed in other parts of scripture that we’d declare ‘unbiblical’ (concubines, polygamy, related marriages, et cetera). could it be that the ‘norms’ of our culture play a larger role in determining our interpretation of what is ‘biblical’? and could it be that what our culture declares as a ‘norm’ is changing? fodder for thought. regardless, ending with simply loving each other is perhaps the best – and most biblical – place to start.

  4. Justin F August 11, 2011 at 7:20 PM #

    The Christian church has faced no shortage of challenges in its 2,000-year history. But now it’s facing a challenge that is shaking its foundations:


    Well the whole thing with Nero and the lions was pretty bad too, I hear.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: