NeedNotFret.com BLOG
Thu
26
Mar
2009
Wes Hill, We Can't Accept "Homosexual Christians"
Dear Wesley Hill:
Thank you for being honest about your struggles with homosexuality and for your well-written article, "Will the Church be the Church for Homosexual Christians?" I'm glad that you're not acting on your desires and that you're seeking to live a biblically celibate life outside of marriage.
I'm sorry that you find yourself in such a state of loneliness and desperation. I do pray that Christ will continue to make his presence known to you through his followers. And, I pray that he delivers you from these desires.
The church should be a place where all believers can confess their sins and struggles and find comfort among the followers of Christ. Most anyone who's been in the American church can testify to the fact that many churches aren't safe places where followers of Jesus can open up and be real about their issues. The American church has a long way to go in becoming all that Christ has for his bride in this regard. I'm glad that you have believing friends who encourage you to follow the pattern set out in Scripture rather than your own desires.
My major concern with your article, however, is not your honesty about where you are in your struggle or what you're struggling with, but with the label you give yourself and others--homosexual Christian(s).
Even though you reject the homosexual lifestyle and hold to the biblical pattern of one man with one woman in marriage, I think your label, "homosexual Christian," comes from the gay rights movement not Scripture. Is it true that you're attracted to the same sex? I take your word that you are. Are you a follower of Christ? I have no reason to doubt that you are. So, I'm not denying what you struggle with as a Christian, but, again for clarity's sake, I take issue with the label you give it. "Homosexual Christian" is a dangerous label simply because it promotes what you say you don't promote--the homosexual lifestyle. Even though you probably aren't wishing to endorse the gay right's movement or the philosophy of those who call themselves "practicing homosexual Christians," that's what some people in of the gay right's movement would like--for evangelicals to get comfortable with the idea of "a homosexual Christian."
To demonstrate the odd nature of labeling yourself a homosexual Christian as opposed to, say, "a Christian struggling with gay or homosexual desires" can hopefully be shown with a few examples. What if I wrote an article entitled,
- "Will the Church be the Church for Child-Molesting Christians?"
- Or, "Will the Church be the Church for Wife-Beating Christians?"
- Or maybe, "Will the Church be the Church for Drug-Abusing Christians?"
- Perhaps, "Will the Church be the Church for Angry Christians?"
- What about, "Will the Church be the Church for Fornicating Christians?"
Hopefully my point is clear. We wouldn't accept those as legitimate labels for people in the church because the word Christian doesn't go with any of these behaviors or lifestyles, even if the people in these categories are only tempted to act on their desires. Now, of course, the redeemed person is still in sinful flesh and can get tangled in these sins. But we wouldn't want to create a category or label for them even if they were only tempted to do these sins. Instead, we'd call sin what it is, acknowledge that even the redeemed still sin, and then seek to help these people live in the fullness of Christ rather than to embrace a label that identifies them more with their sin than with their Creator. If a professing Christian--who was also a child molester, or a wife beater, or a drug abuser, or an angry person, or a fornicator--didn't seek to turn from these sins, then after going through the Matthew 18 process of restoration and discipline we'd have to conclude that he wasn't a true believer.
For the professing Christian who embraces the gay lifestyle, we'd have to treat him the same way as Matthew 18 instructs for rebelling people in the church. And for a professing Christian struggling with homosexual desires (who either acted or didn't act on those desires) but who repented and acknowledged that such a lifestyle is sinful, we'd embrace and support him through these difficult times.
Does the church need to be a place where believers can confess the dark sins in their lives and find support to walk in holiness? Most certainly. But, we will never be what Christ wants us to be as the bride if we don't also seek to help people walk in the newness of what God created them to be, and part of that includes being careful about what we label ourselves, especially when the gay right's movement is making such headway into mainstream America, and unfortunately, the church.
The last thing I want my letter to be is a stinging barb or a slap in the face. My heart goes out to you, but I'm concerned about your word choice and the view point behind the words "homosexual Christian."
In Christ,
Kevin L. Howard
HT: Justin Taylor
7 Comments
-
#1
First of all, there is no such thing as a Homosexual Christian. You are either a Christian or a Homosexual. People need to stop associating "sinful nature" with Christianity. Being a "True Christian" is walking upright with Jesus Christ, if you are walking in sin, you are not walking upright!
The Bible says, "You will know them by their fruit." Homosexuality is "bad fruit" and therefore cannot be associated with Christianity - for what do they have in common? -
#2
This is a perplexing entry, as Wesley would certainly rightly object to equating a homosexual orientation with molesting children. An orientation, as he has used it, is a kind of 'hardwiring' that one does not choose. As such, it is much more part of the fiber of one's being than hurting children, spouses, or oneself through drug abuse. Please make a note of this - it is a very important distinction.
-
#3
Dear S,
Thanks for your entry. I encourage you to use your name in the future. Nonetheless, I understand Wesley Hill's argument. I wrote him several times in private and we talked about all of this. I disagree with his position and think that it's invalid and unbiblical to make a distinction between the "orientation" of homosexuality and call it essentially nuetral whereas to make other "orientations" (that is, proclivities towards other sinful actions) as necessarily sinful. Many want to make an "orientation" towards molestation the same as the sin of molesting but not do the same for a homosexual "orientation." The question is, why the need to give homosexual behavior a special class all of its own? It seems this is exactly what practicing homosexuals in the "gay Christian" movement want. I don't buy it.
I wanted to post my interactions with Hill but he's working on a book and wants to keep our arguments private for now. I'm honoring his request.
Again, I understand his position. I just simply reject it.
kev
-
#4
You equate homosexuality with drug abuse, wife beating, and fornication. These are all willfully chosen and completed actions, different from desires. I think S's point is worthy. The Bible clearly states that homosexual activity is a sin. So is drunkenness. Yet, one can be an abstaining alcoholic, engaged in a lifelong commitment to deny those desires.
You ask "Why the need to give homosexual behavior a special class all of its own? I'm probably not going to change your mind, but I think we'd all agree that sexuality is a particularly deep and powerful aspect of personhood. Romans 6:18. A lifelong abstinence from mere alcohol pales in comparison.
Perhaps the title "homosexual Christian" is unwise in its ambiguity regarding practicing/celibate. But as people like Wesley who would accept such a label struggle deeply to obey and glorify their Savior, can we, who are their spiritual family, not have more grace? More gentleness & respect in approaching a subject which is so personal? -
#5
So sorry, I meant 1 Corinthians 6:18.
Though Romans 6:18 is a good reminder that nothing broken or crooked in us, no matter how deep, is more powerful than Him. -
#6
UPDATE (Dec 20, 2009): Regarding my comments in #3 above, instead of "The question is, why the need to give homosexual behavior a special class all of its own?" I should have said 'homosexual orientation.'
-
#7
Laura, please see my article "Misguided Views on Homosexual Orientation." http://neednotfret.jimdo.com/2009/12/20/misguided-views-on-homosexual-orientation/
print version