i am not sure what to think about this article, which is being promoted by Fr James Martin, who has recently written a book on how LGBTQ should be embraced by the church. What do you guys think?
What do you think about this?
- Thread starter aspen
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Wormwood
Chaps
I think there are a number of issues with this article and I will try to name just a few off the top of my head:
1. The author indicates that conservatives who reject homosexuality as a legitimate practice in the eyes of God are implied to be "bigots" from the very start who generally use dogma as a fig leaf covering for their biases. Hmmm, not a very good start if you want a "conversation." These types of ground rules, (i.e. "I am a victim and if you do not agree with me you become a hateful oppressor.") are manipulative ways of trying to debate ideas (imo).
2. The interviewee makes numerous false claims, imo. He argues that historical slavery and condemnation of homosexuality in the OT and NT are in the same boat. Why not, by that rationale, argue that murder, lust and incest are also outdated moral requirements from an ancient culture? These types of blanket dismissals are very myopic and portray conservatives as being biblically ignorant and just zero in on particular sins they like to highlight because of their own bigotry or insecurities. Again, not a very good approach if you are looking for a legitimate "conversation."
3. Telling stories about how one homosexual might care for their partner during a sickness is good. Certainly I think many conservatives need to see people as people and understand they have stories and pain too. Conservatives who debate this issue can often be calloused and merely deal with labels and treat "those people" as the enemy. The same is true with homosexuals (as we see clearly in this article). Yet, I dont know that any conservative thinking through this example would say that caring for a friend who is suffering or dying is a bad thing in any way. The question for me is, "Is homosexual intercourse necessary to promote this kind of care for loved ones who suffer?" I think the answer is, "No."
4. Excusing one behavior with another is a poor approach to this topic as well. Suggesting that people who are sexually active outside of marriage arent really targeted by the church is proof that this is just bigotry at work is nonsense. First, redefining marriage and creating new laws about the nature of marriage is a very different topic. If those who were sexually active outside of marriage had agendas to dissolve marriage as a legal institution, I imagine conservatives would be just as vocal and frustrated about that kind of endeavor. Second, I do not know of any movements in the church that are pushing for adulatory or fornication to be legitimized as valid lifestyles by Christians. So, while churches and many Christians may not focus on this particular sin in the same way homosexuality is approached, this doesn't mean one is being excused. Again, I believe it is the gay community that is causing this issue to become a hot-button issue due to church and legal agendas in ways that are simply not true for those who are heterosexuals who practice their sexuality in a way that is in contrast to the clear teaching of the Bible.
1. The author indicates that conservatives who reject homosexuality as a legitimate practice in the eyes of God are implied to be "bigots" from the very start who generally use dogma as a fig leaf covering for their biases. Hmmm, not a very good start if you want a "conversation." These types of ground rules, (i.e. "I am a victim and if you do not agree with me you become a hateful oppressor.") are manipulative ways of trying to debate ideas (imo).
2. The interviewee makes numerous false claims, imo. He argues that historical slavery and condemnation of homosexuality in the OT and NT are in the same boat. Why not, by that rationale, argue that murder, lust and incest are also outdated moral requirements from an ancient culture? These types of blanket dismissals are very myopic and portray conservatives as being biblically ignorant and just zero in on particular sins they like to highlight because of their own bigotry or insecurities. Again, not a very good approach if you are looking for a legitimate "conversation."
3. Telling stories about how one homosexual might care for their partner during a sickness is good. Certainly I think many conservatives need to see people as people and understand they have stories and pain too. Conservatives who debate this issue can often be calloused and merely deal with labels and treat "those people" as the enemy. The same is true with homosexuals (as we see clearly in this article). Yet, I dont know that any conservative thinking through this example would say that caring for a friend who is suffering or dying is a bad thing in any way. The question for me is, "Is homosexual intercourse necessary to promote this kind of care for loved ones who suffer?" I think the answer is, "No."
4. Excusing one behavior with another is a poor approach to this topic as well. Suggesting that people who are sexually active outside of marriage arent really targeted by the church is proof that this is just bigotry at work is nonsense. First, redefining marriage and creating new laws about the nature of marriage is a very different topic. If those who were sexually active outside of marriage had agendas to dissolve marriage as a legal institution, I imagine conservatives would be just as vocal and frustrated about that kind of endeavor. Second, I do not know of any movements in the church that are pushing for adulatory or fornication to be legitimized as valid lifestyles by Christians. So, while churches and many Christians may not focus on this particular sin in the same way homosexuality is approached, this doesn't mean one is being excused. Again, I believe it is the gay community that is causing this issue to become a hot-button issue due to church and legal agendas in ways that are simply not true for those who are heterosexuals who practice their sexuality in a way that is in contrast to the clear teaching of the Bible.
Wormwood, thank you for your detailed opinion.
I agree with your first two points.
I was especially troubled by the implied bigotry you pointed out in your first point.
I tend to disagree with your fourth point - I understand your premise; 'excusing one behavior with another is a poor approach to....'
However, I disagree with the idea that homosexuals are trying to destroy the institution of marriage.
I appreciate your response. I am not a conservative Christian so it has been difficult for me to see the POV - even when the article really didn't hit me right.
I agree with your first two points.
I was especially troubled by the implied bigotry you pointed out in your first point.
I tend to disagree with your fourth point - I understand your premise; 'excusing one behavior with another is a poor approach to....'
However, I disagree with the idea that homosexuals are trying to destroy the institution of marriage.
I appreciate your response. I am not a conservative Christian so it has been difficult for me to see the POV - even when the article really didn't hit me right.
Helen
Well-Known Member
- Oct 22, 2011
- 15,476
- 21,157
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- Canada
I agree with all Wormwood said...nothing left for me to say LOL He said it all so well.
I do happen to agree that there is an agenda out to destroy marriage.
Sometimes we forget the dark spirits which operate behind the scenes and drive these thing forward.
From Gen-Rev it is all about The Great Lover, seeking His Bride....anything that destroys that is an evil spirit at work. Or should I say The Evil spirt at work. The Enemy of everything God stands for.
Good thread...thanks.
I do happen to agree that there is an agenda out to destroy marriage.
Sometimes we forget the dark spirits which operate behind the scenes and drive these thing forward.
From Gen-Rev it is all about The Great Lover, seeking His Bride....anything that destroys that is an evil spirit at work. Or should I say The Evil spirt at work. The Enemy of everything God stands for.
Good thread...thanks.
Not the homosexuals its satan hes behind it and they like most Christians dont know the love of Jesus in there lives.
bbyrd009
Groper
- Nov 30, 2016
- 33,943
- 12,081
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States Minor Outlying Islands
Wormwood
Chaps
Aspen,
Thanks for your kind response. I do not think I communicated my fourth point very well. I didn't mean to suggest that the homosexual community was attempting to "destroy" marriage (although some conservatives may define it that way). What I was trying to say was that they were attempting to "redefine" marriage. Thus, they are getting attention from conservatives because of this effort. I tried to make an analogy that if adulterers or fornicators created an agenda to dissolve marriage completely, conservative Christians would likely rise up against them in the same way they are debating the homosexual community. Therefore, in my mind, it is not so much the nature of the sin, but the legal and social agenda for this community that has conservative Christians speaking out against it in ways they dont with adultry, etc. I hope that makes better sense.
Thanks for your kind response. I do not think I communicated my fourth point very well. I didn't mean to suggest that the homosexual community was attempting to "destroy" marriage (although some conservatives may define it that way). What I was trying to say was that they were attempting to "redefine" marriage. Thus, they are getting attention from conservatives because of this effort. I tried to make an analogy that if adulterers or fornicators created an agenda to dissolve marriage completely, conservative Christians would likely rise up against them in the same way they are debating the homosexual community. Therefore, in my mind, it is not so much the nature of the sin, but the legal and social agenda for this community that has conservative Christians speaking out against it in ways they dont with adultry, etc. I hope that makes better sense.
Wormwood
Chaps
One other point I forgot to mention about the article that I hear often in these discussions...
I believe the fact that Jesus did not speak to this issue is not an endorsement of homosexuality in any way. The Jewish religion and communities have rejected homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle for 6,000 years. Considering that Jesus was not afraid to confront misunderstandings or abuses of the OT Law in his preaching only strengthens the notion that Jesus did not have a different view than that of the Jewish community to which he spoke. He certainly had no problem challenging contemporary views about women, retaliation, divorce and the practices of the religious leaders of his day. I have no doubt he would have mentioned something if the people had misunderstood God's intentions in denouncing this practice (especially since the practice was not uncommon among the Gentiles around them).
In sum, making arguments from silence is a pretty poor hermeneutical approach. Anytime we argue that someone's silence means approval of an act or lifestyle only indicates to me that they have no real support and have resulted to grasping at straws by imposing their own views on supposed omissions. This is especially true when other NT authors do speak on the issue and do not condone the practice in any way.
I believe the fact that Jesus did not speak to this issue is not an endorsement of homosexuality in any way. The Jewish religion and communities have rejected homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle for 6,000 years. Considering that Jesus was not afraid to confront misunderstandings or abuses of the OT Law in his preaching only strengthens the notion that Jesus did not have a different view than that of the Jewish community to which he spoke. He certainly had no problem challenging contemporary views about women, retaliation, divorce and the practices of the religious leaders of his day. I have no doubt he would have mentioned something if the people had misunderstood God's intentions in denouncing this practice (especially since the practice was not uncommon among the Gentiles around them).
In sum, making arguments from silence is a pretty poor hermeneutical approach. Anytime we argue that someone's silence means approval of an act or lifestyle only indicates to me that they have no real support and have resulted to grasping at straws by imposing their own views on supposed omissions. This is especially true when other NT authors do speak on the issue and do not condone the practice in any way.
bbyrd009
Groper
- Nov 30, 2016
- 33,943
- 12,081
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States Minor Outlying Islands
amen, but i would def be reflecting upon the likelyhood that God cares about spiritual adultery, and the Jewish religion and communities are case studies in religious perceptions that failed the test anyway. It is hypocritical to endorse (buy) things that are known to chemically confuse gender, and then judge those who may have been affected by them imo.
Wormwood
Chaps
Just for clarification, I don't think that believing a particular act is sinful and rejecting it is the same thing as "judging." I believe we are called to discern actions and reject things that are contrary to the high calling of Christ Jesus. We can love people without condoning their actions or lifestyles just as we can love our own children while warning them or speaking against things they do that are inappropriate. Unfortunately, some Christians have difficulty with this balancing act and the bulk of conservative Christianity is lumped into the radical few who are vulgar and hateful towards the homosexual community.
Personally, I think we shouldn't be surprised when unbelievers do things that are contrary to the Scriptures. I think it is different when someone who claims to be a Christian or Christian leader engages and condones such a lifestyle. I think the NT is very clear that we are to strongly warn such a person and even disassociate with such people if they persist. I think God takes the holiness of His Church very seriously. Anyway, we can do all the above with love and say nothing about someone's eternal salvation. Just my thoughts.
Personally, I think we shouldn't be surprised when unbelievers do things that are contrary to the Scriptures. I think it is different when someone who claims to be a Christian or Christian leader engages and condones such a lifestyle. I think the NT is very clear that we are to strongly warn such a person and even disassociate with such people if they persist. I think God takes the holiness of His Church very seriously. Anyway, we can do all the above with love and say nothing about someone's eternal salvation. Just my thoughts.
Marymog
Well-Known Member
- Mar 7, 2017
- 11,420
- 1,681
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
I think the key words in the article are: The interview has been edited and condensed.
Which means we must read the book to get the full scope of what James Martin really means or believes. I don't feel comfortable FULLY responding to "edited and condensed" articles.
I do agree with his statement and: Any sex outside of marriage is sinful. That also includes straight people who are living together before marriage.
I like this Q&A assuming it is in full context:
LA: What would you say to someone who takes a really hard line...who...wants to cut ties with you because you’re gay?
JM: Then you should cut ties with everyone who sins, which means you would cut ties with everyone you know. So have fun in your church of one.
Mary
Which means we must read the book to get the full scope of what James Martin really means or believes. I don't feel comfortable FULLY responding to "edited and condensed" articles.
I do agree with his statement and: Any sex outside of marriage is sinful. That also includes straight people who are living together before marriage.
I like this Q&A assuming it is in full context:
LA: What would you say to someone who takes a really hard line...who...wants to cut ties with you because you’re gay?
JM: Then you should cut ties with everyone who sins, which means you would cut ties with everyone you know. So have fun in your church of one.
Mary
Wormwood
Chaps
Marymog,
My concern with the "church of one" argument is that is just isn't Biblical. There is a big difference in saying, "I will not associate with sinners because I perceive myself to be perfect" and saying, "I will not fellowship with those who claim to be Christian and yet indulge and engage in lifestyles that God has declared to be wicked."
I mean, you have to explain 1 Corinthians 5:1-13 and I dont think you can just dismiss it so easily as to say, "Well we are all sinners, so live and let live." Paul seems to be taking a very different stance and instructing the Church (through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) to think differently as well.
In sum, the argument that Christians should not stand up against or reject wicked behavior in their midst because we all have sinned just doesn't hold water. Yes, we have all sinned, and none of us are saved by our own righteousness. We all need grace. However, we are called toward holiness and transformed living. The pervasive acceptance of evil behavior by Christians under the guise of humility and love I find to be really grounded in neither. I find it is usually based more in a desire for cultural acceptance and fear of being labeled as a bigot. Paul didn't seem to have such fears when he wrote about such sins and how the Church should approach those behaviors.
Marymog
Well-Known Member
- Mar 7, 2017
- 11,420
- 1,681
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Hi Wormwood,
I want to make sure I am not misunderstanding your post.
Do you think that JM is TELLING people to cut ties with everyone who sins?
Mary
Wormwood
Chaps
Marymog,
Thanks for responding. I think he is using hyperbole to make a point. I think he is saying, "If a Christian cuts ties with someone who claims to be Christian and is gay, then they should go ahead and cut ties with everyone because everyone sins." The point I think he is making is that it is hypocrisy to cut ties with a gay person such as himself because they are picking and choosing sins to condemn while ignoring the sins of other Christians they associate with.
I think he is in error not only because that is not consistent with the teaching of the NT, but also because being a Christian person who sins and being a Christian person who has embraced and promotes a sinful lifestyle are two different things. Have I lied? Yes I have lied. However, if there is a pathological liar in the church who is promoting a lifestyle of lying and encouraging others to join unashamedly in that lifestyle with him/her, then the believers should disassociate with such a person. Have I struggled with lust in my life? Yes. However, that is very different from someone who claims to follow Christ and is unrepentantly in an adulterous relationship and who boldly declares that there is nothing wrong with such a relationship.
In the text I referenced, Paul is not encouraging Christians to be hyper-critical of one another, but he is calling Christians to be separate from the world and to root out pervasive sins that are evident to all. I hope that makes sense.
Thanks for responding. I think he is using hyperbole to make a point. I think he is saying, "If a Christian cuts ties with someone who claims to be Christian and is gay, then they should go ahead and cut ties with everyone because everyone sins." The point I think he is making is that it is hypocrisy to cut ties with a gay person such as himself because they are picking and choosing sins to condemn while ignoring the sins of other Christians they associate with.
I think he is in error not only because that is not consistent with the teaching of the NT, but also because being a Christian person who sins and being a Christian person who has embraced and promotes a sinful lifestyle are two different things. Have I lied? Yes I have lied. However, if there is a pathological liar in the church who is promoting a lifestyle of lying and encouraging others to join unashamedly in that lifestyle with him/her, then the believers should disassociate with such a person. Have I struggled with lust in my life? Yes. However, that is very different from someone who claims to follow Christ and is unrepentantly in an adulterous relationship and who boldly declares that there is nothing wrong with such a relationship.
In the text I referenced, Paul is not encouraging Christians to be hyper-critical of one another, but he is calling Christians to be separate from the world and to root out pervasive sins that are evident to all. I hope that makes sense.
Marymog
Well-Known Member
- Mar 7, 2017
- 11,420
- 1,681
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Is he gay? I can't find anything where he said he is.
I am still confused on what you are saying.
Do you think JM is telling people to cut ties with everyone who sins?
A simple yes or no would help end my confusion.
Confused Mary
Wormwood
Chaps
Marymog,
I really am trying to be clear. Let me break it down a little more to help.
Question 1: Is he gay?
According to the quote above, it would seem so (emphasis mine). Maybe the "you" is not directed at the JM fellow, but either way, it doesn't impact the point I was making. My argument is against his logic, not him as a person.
No. I think he is using hyperbole. He is making an absurd argument to try to undermine the stance of those who would stop fellowshipping with those who claim to be Christian and engage in a homosexual lifestyle.
I really am trying to be clear. Let me break it down a little more to help.
Question 1: Is he gay?
According to the quote above, it would seem so (emphasis mine). Maybe the "you" is not directed at the JM fellow, but either way, it doesn't impact the point I was making. My argument is against his logic, not him as a person.
No. I think he is using hyperbole. He is making an absurd argument to try to undermine the stance of those who would stop fellowshipping with those who claim to be Christian and engage in a homosexual lifestyle.
Marymog
Well-Known Member
- Mar 7, 2017
- 11,420
- 1,681
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
I do apologize. The "is he gay" question was a sidebar and was based on you saying "....to cut ties with a gay person such as himself...". It is not important to our conversation. I can't find anywhere that he has announced that he is gay. I thought you found information I couldn't find.
I agree, he is using hyperbole.
I guess I am getting confused as to where he is in "error" according to you?
What I understand JM to be saying is that a person can be gay and that is not a sin. It is when you ACT upon it (gay sex) is when you have sinned. ANY sex outside of marriage is a sin; gay or straight.
I don't see anywhere in the interview where JM says that he has "embraced and promotes a sinful lifestyle". He seems to believe Christianity can bridge the gap and help the ACTIVELY gay person stop being actively gay. Just like helping a person who is ACTIVELY engaging in an extra-marital affair end that affair. Maybe I am missing his "error".
Mary
Wormwood
Chaps
Marymog,
Thank you for responding. I had a very different take on the purpose of this article than you. I see nothing in this article that indicates the purpose of it is to help actively gay people stop being gay. Rather, the author says at the beginning of the article that it is about "the best ways to approach a conversation about LGBT rights with someone who is religious and intolerant." Thus, the purpose of it is to develop a means of speaking to "intolerant" Christians about LGBT rights (the right of being able to ACT on homosexual desires and unions with the full support of the law).
The article says, "If you’re an LGBT person, say, “I’m not sinful simply for being LGBT. I’d like to share with you my experience of growing up, and how I always felt gay or lesbian or as a person in the wrong body.”
Again, the premise here is not to get a person to stop being LGBT, but to find ways to convince the "intolerant" that they should accept this lifestyle for those who feel they are in the wrong body.
The article says, "No one says “I hate the sin, but love you as a sinner.” Very few people say that [to people in that situation]. The LGBT are the people placed under a microscope, and I think that’s discriminatory."
The context here indicates that this person feels the church should not talk about homosexuality because it says very little about premarital or extra-marital sex. He seems to think that focusing on homosexual acts is merely an act of discrimination. He really dodges the question about whether or not homosexuality is a sin. He says "All sex outside marriage is sinful." But he avoids the question regarding whether homosexual marriage is a legitimate institution or if a person is acting in sin if they are active in homosexual sex with someone they have "married." I can only assume that this person believes homosexual marriage to be legitimate and homosexuality to not be sinful in such circumstances given his comments about trying to help someone see the legitimacy of homosexual unions by sharing a story of a homosexual person who cared for their partner in sickness.
One thing that really bothers me about this discussion is the idea that a person can be "gay" but not be sexually active which is therefore not a sin. I find this to be unnecessarily confusing. Articles like this are not talking about whether or not an attraction is sinful if the person doesn't act on it. They are talking about "gay rights" and how to promote acceptance of homosexuality and gay unions amongst conservative Christians. I have yet to find someone who merely wants to argue for same-sex attraction with no desire or agenda to act on those attractions. Clearly this article is part of the effort to legitimize homosexuality. I just think there is no biblical way to do that. The Bible does not validate homosexual sex, regardless of whether or not the act is casual or between a committed couple.
Thank you for responding. I had a very different take on the purpose of this article than you. I see nothing in this article that indicates the purpose of it is to help actively gay people stop being gay. Rather, the author says at the beginning of the article that it is about "the best ways to approach a conversation about LGBT rights with someone who is religious and intolerant." Thus, the purpose of it is to develop a means of speaking to "intolerant" Christians about LGBT rights (the right of being able to ACT on homosexual desires and unions with the full support of the law).
The article says, "If you’re an LGBT person, say, “I’m not sinful simply for being LGBT. I’d like to share with you my experience of growing up, and how I always felt gay or lesbian or as a person in the wrong body.”
Again, the premise here is not to get a person to stop being LGBT, but to find ways to convince the "intolerant" that they should accept this lifestyle for those who feel they are in the wrong body.
The article says, "No one says “I hate the sin, but love you as a sinner.” Very few people say that [to people in that situation]. The LGBT are the people placed under a microscope, and I think that’s discriminatory."
The context here indicates that this person feels the church should not talk about homosexuality because it says very little about premarital or extra-marital sex. He seems to think that focusing on homosexual acts is merely an act of discrimination. He really dodges the question about whether or not homosexuality is a sin. He says "All sex outside marriage is sinful." But he avoids the question regarding whether homosexual marriage is a legitimate institution or if a person is acting in sin if they are active in homosexual sex with someone they have "married." I can only assume that this person believes homosexual marriage to be legitimate and homosexuality to not be sinful in such circumstances given his comments about trying to help someone see the legitimacy of homosexual unions by sharing a story of a homosexual person who cared for their partner in sickness.
One thing that really bothers me about this discussion is the idea that a person can be "gay" but not be sexually active which is therefore not a sin. I find this to be unnecessarily confusing. Articles like this are not talking about whether or not an attraction is sinful if the person doesn't act on it. They are talking about "gay rights" and how to promote acceptance of homosexuality and gay unions amongst conservative Christians. I have yet to find someone who merely wants to argue for same-sex attraction with no desire or agenda to act on those attractions. Clearly this article is part of the effort to legitimize homosexuality. I just think there is no biblical way to do that. The Bible does not validate homosexual sex, regardless of whether or not the act is casual or between a committed couple.
Similar threads
