Christianity & Homosexuality - What's Fair?

[prisonchaplain]

I know...I know...this issue's been beaten to death. Yet, there is a sense that traditional Christian morals are losing in the public square. We are not only failing to influence society towards chastity--we're actually on the defense for alleged bigotry, hatefulness and harshness. My 13-year old tells me of a Facebook link to a short movie in which the LBGT folk are "normal" and heterosexuals are despised as "breeders." In the presentation a 9-year old girl is shown innocently kissing a boy. Suddenly a group of lesbians come in, beat her up, and write "breeder" on her forehead. The scene brought tears to her eyes.

With social media, public schools, Hollywood, and peer pressure--even from "LBGT allies" within our faith traditions all clamoring for tolerance, acceptance, empathy and yes, approval, how do we declare, "Thus saieth the Lord," while "loving our neighbor?"

My own church came out with a strong statement for biblical mores: http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/Position_Papers/pp_downloads/pp_4181_homosexuality.pdf. The statement re-affirms that biblical sexuality happens only in the confines of marriage between a man and woman. It distinguishes between same-sex attraction (a temptation) and homosexual behavior (sin). The reaction to those who support LBGT behavior is that we should not be not surprised. The Bible predicts that people will not stand for sound teaching for long. They will gather themselves teachers who will scratch their itching ears with lofty-sounding approval.

I'll be nice to anyone who will let me be nice. Force me to deny my faith, or the clear meaning of scripture and I fear that I will offend you.

[The Folk Prophet]

Part of the problem lies in the redefinition of words and ideas to suit the pro-agenda. Ideas like tolerance being touted as a virtue. Tolerance is not a virtue. Tolerance just is. Good tolerance is good. Bad tolerance is bad. But now people speak of tolerance like it is, in and of its own accord, something good in all cases. When, in fact, intolerance is sometimes the virtue. The same can be said for the use and meaning of love, particularly in accordance with the homosexual agenda. Love has been twisted to mean something it never meant, and all sorts of other attributes (like tolerance, acceptance, kindness, etc,) have been tied into it's meaning that are not naturally inherent in it's meaning.

The Christian world has somewhat bought into this deception and speaks and preaches with the world's take on these same terms, and it is detrimental to the cause. We cannot speak of tolerance as a virtue and then speak of intolerance in any regard, and yet, clearly, Christianity is intolerant of homosexuality -- as well it should be. And this is good.

Likewise, we cannot speak of love and mean all these other things that love doesn't mean and then make a convincing argument that sustains long held Christian values and actions concerning homosexual behavior without undercutting our new sermons of love. To be more explicit in my meaning -- we can't use love in terms of the world and then talk about not accepting behavior, because the world has turned the meaning of love to include acceptance of behavior. We've shot ourselves in the foot somewhat by buying into these new definitions.

[prisonchaplain]

Church, you are correct--perhaps more than you realize. "Tolerance" is a one-sided lie. Some LBGT advocates have been open about expecting tolerance from the faith communities, while offering none towards them. When called on it, the response is, "Of course I want them to tolerate me. But why should I tolerate those who call my identity sin?"

Tolerance is also, properly understood, an disapproving word. It means I put up with something--endure it. It was never intended as a bridge towards mutual appreciation and respect. Then, we are surprised when those we tolerated now have us on the defense? There was never any true intent to respect/appreciate us. After all, we declared their nature to be a sinful temptation.

And yet...I do want to be loving. I desire to love sinners, as Jesus did. But if, as the woman at the caught in adultery discovered, you call upon me to encourage you, my response will be, "Go and sin no more."

[applepansy]

I'm going to paraphrase a quote from Jeffery R. Holland:

The outcome of good and evil has been determined. All that is left to be decided is which side you're going to be on.

Does it matter if we're losing in the public square? In every dispensation the followers of Christ have had to stand against great opposition. I don't think it will be different in this dispensation.

I saw a meme on FB that someone who stuck to his conviction was applauded but today someone who stands up for their convictions is labeled with hate filled names like rascist or homophobe or etc.

"Go and sin no more" can be said with love.

Edited January 16, 2014 by applepansy

[applepansy]

I found it:

“The FUTURE of this world has long been DECLARED; the final outcome between GOOD and evil is already KNOWN. There is absolutely no question as to who WINS because the VICTORY has already been posted on the SCOREBOARD. The only really strange thing is all of this is that we are still down here on the FIELD trying to decide which TEAM’S JERSEY we want to wear!”

― Jeffrey R. Holland

As for the question in the subject of this thread. Fair doesn't play a role.

[Sharky]

I have to be really careful with this subject ... I understand the stance of Christianity & I understand & accept the LDS views, including the views of acceptance & that we are commanded & required to forgive.

I may not like that my son is a practicing gay, though just the same he is my son & I love him.

Fairness?

Was it fair that my sons "life partner", following a traffic accident, laid in intensive care dying alone because only "family" was allowed?

Except an opposite-sex fiancé would have been allowed.

Was it fair that the doctors were making all the medical decision because "family" long ago disowned this man?

Yet, in the waiting room, never being briefed or updated on the patients condition was a man who truly loved & would have very willing traded places.

Was it fair that my son, who loved & devoted his life to this man just as do heterosexual couples love & devout their lives to each other, only learned his of his loves passing because of a very compassionate doctor?

A doctor who felt it wrong to send the body to the morgue so a family who had disowned him could be asked where they'd like the remains sent.

Luckily, I believe in an all-knowing and fair God. That does not mean that my son will be absolved of his sins, though it does mean he'll be held accountable to God's laws with God's understanding rather then to man's interpretations.

It means that as a parent I don't have to "tolerate" my son's "life choices", rather I can forgive & I can accept my son as he is ..... & yes, if you are wondering, we welcomed our son's life-partner into our lives, our home, & loved him just as do all of our sons in law & daughters in law.

So if that unwavering acceptance reaps me the wrath of God, then so be it.

[prisonchaplain]

Does it matter if we're losing in the public square? In every dispensation the followers of Christ have had to stand against great opposition. I don't think it will be different in this dispensation.

I was thinking about this question today. Why do we fret about how non-believers react to our moral teachings? The scriptural answer is that we are commissioned to be salt and light. We want to bring blessings and righteousness wherever we go. We hope to influence society for the gospel. Christians in America have felt an added burden. We are still seen as a Christian nation, and honest historians will admit that Christianity has greatly influenced our development. So, we now feel dismay at the wane of our influence.

Again, as the link I provided indicated, the Bible predicts that society will not long endure (tolerate?) sound teaching. Eventually the unrighteous will react against righteousness. Ironically, when of the arrows shot our way is, "You people think you are sooooo right!"

Does it matter? God is in control, but like Abraham, we do well to lobby (pray) for our communities, hoping against hope that there remains "10 righteous" in the land.

[prisonchaplain]

Sharky, I thanked you because it is never easy to share personal experiences like yours in a forum environment like this. In my ideal world your son's partner would have been involved because the family involved him. We are commanded to love sinners, since we all are such. Likewise, we are not called upon to constantly remind sinners that what they do is sin. I would be shocked to find out that as Jesus dined with tax collectors, wine bibbers, and prostitutes, that he spent the meal decrying corrupt tax collectors, drunkards and "women of the night." He loved them.

"Sexual orientation" (itself not a sin) is a temptation, not a personality trait. I do not identify myself by my inclinations--especially those that lead me away from God's best. So, yes, love the sinner. But in that love, we must not endorse sin, nor expect society to bless and codify it into our laws.

Comparisons always get us in trouble. However, I offer an imperfect one--that of spouses who cheat. Literature is filled with such stories. Sometimes the liasons result in children. There is an unkind name for those offspring. It's not their fault. Yet, they are the product of an immoral union. The sins of the fathers do fall on their children in many ways. Historically, they did not have legal claim to inheritance. They ususally did not get much support at all. Fair? Perhaps not. However, in codifying equal support, would we not also be endorsing illicit affairs?

We are called to love the widows, orphan, and poor. We should help those like this son's partner, to at least get some compassion. Churches should be at the forefront of such support. I'm recalling an AIDS hospice my church ran in Key West, FL, back in the early 90s. Charity and love, yes. Societal codifying of immoral sexual behavior? I'd hope not--though I suspect we will.

[Dravin]

So if that unwavering acceptance reaps me the wrath of God, then so be it.

I assume this is rhetorical flourish rather than meant honestly? If meant honestly it has implications that basically boil down to you putting your will ahead of God's and essentially wearing it like a badge of honor.

[Sharky]

I assume this is rhetorical flourish rather than meant honestly? If meant honestly it has implications that basically boil down to you putting your will ahead of God's and essentially wearing it like a badge of honor.

Yes. Rhetoric. Sarcastic.

It seems there are many within the "Christian world" (& within the LDS faith) that judge my wife & I very harshly for being accepting & loving of our son ... maybe even believe we should be "struck down".

In fact this issue was once raised that we actually were condoning his choice by welcoming & allowing his S.O. into our family & home. It was interesting as I could honestly look that individual in the eye & ask if they welcomed & allowed into their home their own sons live-in girl friend & the resulting grandchildren & did doing so condone their son's sin?

Apparently being so blunt about "casting the first stone" was offending as that individual & his family has not spoken to me or acknowledged me or my wife since.

[The Folk Prophet]

Yes. Rhetoric. Sarcastic.

It seems there are many within the "Christian world" (& within the LDS faith) that judge my wife & I very harshly for being accepting & loving of our son ... maybe even believe we should be "struck down".

In fact this issue was once raised that we actually were condoning his choice by welcoming & allowing his S.O. into our family & home. It was interesting as I could honestly look that individual in the eye & ask if they welcomed & allowed into their home their own sons live-in girl friend & the resulting grandchildren & did doing so condone their son's sin?

Apparently being so blunt about "casting the first stone" was offending as that individual & his family has not spoken to me or acknowledged me or my wife since.

Unfortunately it is a very complicated thing. Unfortunately there is a possibility of acceptance literally condoning sin. It is not black-and-white, nor should reactions to specific situations every be blanket policy. Prayer, fasting, study, etc., are imperative in these things. To claim that everyone should always let their child's "S.O." into their home and family is just as wrong of an idea as that everyone should always NOT let their child's "S.O." into their home and family. Sometimes it may be a good idea, sometimes it may be a horrible idea.

My concern, and where I might in some cases be guilty of coming across as judging people like you and your wife, is that I think the people of the Christian world, as influenced by politically correct lies, are turning more and more towards the blanket idea of always accepting. I need to be careful and not snap judge though. In principle, however, I can state that I do not feel this is an overriding principle that should guide our decisions (acceptance). Rather, what should guide our decisions is, as mentioned, prayer, fasting, etc., and following the spirit.

Edited January 16, 2014 by church

[Dravin]

It seems there are many within the "Christian world" (& within the LDS faith) that judge my wife & I very harshly for being accepting & loving of our son ... maybe even believe we should be "struck down".

For the record, I see a distinction to be made between being accepting and loving of someone who commits sin and condoning sin. Obviously the line between those two is a matter of much heated debate (and even what each side of that blurry line means in practical terms), but I don't think loving and accepting sinners puts us at odds with God's will.

Edited January 16, 2014 by Dravin

[Guest]

And as far as the story of the gay guy in the hospital...

This is not a homosexual issue. It really isn't. Homosexual movements just want to use it as their bludgeoning tool to legalize gay marriage.

Because... there are sooooo many non-homosexual Americans suffering alone in hospitals and nursing homes and hospices because they are not married or have no families.

The law needs changing - but not so we can legalize gay marriage. And it would still be fair - if there's such a thing.

As Christians - we need to actively help find solutions to these social problems without having to accept/condone that which we can't without sacrificing our moral principles.

[LittleWyvern]

With social media, public schools, Hollywood, and peer pressure--even from "LBGT allies" within our faith traditions all clamoring for tolerance, acceptance, empathy and yes, approval, how do we declare, "Thus saieth the Lord," while "loving our neighbor?"

This CES Devotional by Dallin H. Oaks is my favorite on the subject. In it, Elder Oaks talks about the necessary balance between truth and tolerance in our public lives and gives three principles of tolerance:

1. All persons are brothers and sisters under God, taught within their various religions to love and do good to one another.
   
2. Living together with mutual respect for one another’s differences. . . is what the gospel of Jesus Christ teaches us we must do.
   
3. We do not abandon the truth and our covenants.
   

There's also two quotes from the talk that I'd like to just paste in, as any attempt to summarize them would be detrimental:

To tolerate something is to learn to live with it, even when you think it is wrong and downright evil. … We must go, I believe, beyond tolerance if we are to achieve harmony in our world. We must respect this God-given dignity in every human being, even in our enemies. For the goal of all human relations—whether they are religious, social, political, or economic—ought to be cooperation and mutual respect.

While we must practice tolerance and respect for others and their beliefs, including their constitutional freedom to explain and advocate their positions, we are not required to respect and tolerate wrong behavior. Our duty to truth requires us to seek relief from some behavior that is wrong.

[The Folk Prophet]

For the record, I see a distinction to be made between being accepting and loving of someone who commits sin and condoning sin. Obviously the line between those two is a matter of much heated debate (and even what each side of that blurry line means in practical terms), but I don't think loving and accepting sinners puts as at odds with God's will.

Because of that blurry line, I think a statement as straightforward as "I don't think loving and accepting sinners puts as at odds with God's will" works. Obviously the "loving" part can be stated confidently. The "accepting" part is where it gets sticky. What does it mean to accept? How far does it go? Wherein does it cross the line to condoning and enabling? These are not simple answers and so a simple "accept sinners" is invalid, imo.

When a kid starts hanging out with the druggy neighbor do we just look on the moment with pride in our hearts because they are loving and accepting the sinner? Or do we say, "Whoa...maybe you need to be more careful about who you hang out with?" I mean there's a clear balance there that needs to be struck. But it's not just "accept them because that's what Christ would do." That's a false interpretation of what Christ actually did. He did not just go hang out in the bathroom with the smoking kids while playing hooky, or go out on dangerous joy rides ignoring the law-breaking and foul language, etc., etc., as an example of how to love. These things are not love and acceptance, and not the example Christ set.

There's a lot of justification to accept the sinner based on the theoretical example set by Christ, but it's a false reference. This idea that Christ hung out with prostitutes and sinners -- not really the case. Christ primarily hung out with his disciples. Sure, some of them were sinners prior to their discipleship (to be fair and literal, all of them were sinners, as all mankind are...but I'm specifically meaning grievous sinners). They were good and righteous people. When he did "hang" with sinners, it was to preach and uplift. They weren't just His buddies hangin' with him on a Saturday night, yo.

I know I'm responding to much more than you actually said. I'm just expounding on my thoughts, not really trying to debate.

[The Folk Prophet]

And as far as the story of the gay guy in the hospital...

This is not a homosexual issue. It really isn't. Homosexual movements just want to use it as their bludgeoning tool to legalize gay marriage.

Because... there are sooooo many non-homosexual Americans suffering alone in hospitals and nursing homes and hospices because they are not married or have no families.

The law needs changing - but not so we can legalize gay marriage. And it would still be fair - if there's such a thing.

As Christians - we need to actively help find solutions to these social problems without having to accept/condone that which we can't without sacrificing our moral principles.

I was going to say something almost exactly the same.

[Guest]

I was going to say something almost exactly the same.

I want to take this opportunity to tell you that even when we are not saying almost exactly the same things, I appreciate your posts. I enjoy reading through them even if sometimes we don't agree on things.

[prisonchaplain]

Church, you are correct--perhaps more than you realize. "Tolerance" is a one-sided lie. Some LBGT advocates have been open about expecting tolerance from the faith communities, while offering none towards them. When called on it, the response is, "Of course I want them to tolerate me. But why should I tolerate those who call my identity sin?"

DISCLAIMER: You are welcome to label me tacky for quoting my own post.

Europe/England are usually ahead of us on these matters. The linked article describes how pro-family groups are finding it increasingly difficult to operate in the public square. This panel discussion event was canceled by two different public venues--both citing their "diversity policies," saying that the theme of traditional values contradicting their promotion of tolerance. So, in order to promote tolerance, they were banning alternative perspectives. How...er...uh...tolerant???

The new intolerance: will we regret pushing Christians out of public life?

[The Folk Prophet]

I want to take this opportunity to tell you that even when we are not saying almost exactly the same things, I appreciate your posts. I enjoy reading through them even if sometimes we don't agree on things.

Thanks.

Just be aware that when we don't agree you need to seriously rethink your position.

j/k

Edited January 16, 2014 by church
j/k. just in case someone is sense-of-humorless

[Guest]

Thanks.

Just be aware that when we don't agree you need to seriously rethink your position.

I need the laugh button!!!

[The Folk Prophet]

DISCLAIMER: You are welcome to label me tacky for quoting my own post.

Europe/England are usually ahead of us on these matters. The linked article describes how pro-family groups are finding it increasingly difficult to operate in the public square. This panel discussion event was canceled by two different public venues--both citing their "diversity policies," saying that the theme of traditional values contradicting their promotion of tolerance. So, in order to promote tolerance, they were banning alternative perspectives. How...er...uh...tolerant???

The new intolerance: will we regret pushing Christians out of public life?

Hey, I just quoted myself in another post. Though it was because the first post was idiotic and I had to correct myself. Which is the greater sin, to be tacky or idiotic?

:)

[Guest]

Hey, I just quoted myself in another post. Though it was because the first post was idiotic and I had to correct myself. Which is the greater sin, to be tacky or idiotic?

:)

Neither. They're equally great sins. LOL.

[prisonchaplain]

CHURCH: Just be aware that when we don't agree you need to seriously rethink your position.

I need the laugh button!!!

Why? When you are correcting your previous errors, laughing only makes you seem nervous and embarrassed. :D:p:D:p:D:p

Edited January 16, 2014 by prisonchaplain

[The Folk Prophet]

Let's talk about how to tolerate appropriately. I admit I struggle with this. How does one tolerate without condoning? How does one hang out with something that makes one uncomfortable? I'm not just talking homosexuality here either. As a Mormon, I get very uncomfortable sometimes at, say, work parties with alcohol and the like. My inclination is to just leave.

Thoughts?

[prisonchaplain]

We remain friends with people we disagree with--whether it be about politics, sexuality, or football. We see them, not the vices. If they ask our opinion, we are honest, but attempt to be compassionate, so as not to break fellowship.

BTW, I track with being uncomfortable at parties with a lot of alcohol being served. Nevertheless, if I have associates I am close with attending, I may sit with them and chat. Usually there comes a time when the non-drinkers and light drinkers leave.