I think we experience this in many other areas, where to criticize someone’s behavior is to criticize who they are. Isn’t this why it’s so difficult to live by “love the sinner, hate the sin” and why people in often take comments about their actions as personal attacks? But, in my experience,it is more pronounced in the GLBT community. I am not sure why you label this as controversial Scot. I see quite often comments along the lines of “this is who I am” which is a statement of identity, not action.
This sounds like a good read, particularly in that it’s not simply anecdotes but is backed by more objective studies and I think even more importantly, contains some wisdom as to how this might shape our behaviors, of being with and also avoiding the path of simply saying “here are the choices – pick one.”

Definitely the “hate the sin, love the sinner” is a painful, unhelpful formulation when it comes to the GLBT conversation.
But sin and identity are fused tightly in all of us, aren’t they?
I’ve tried to imagine what it would be like to meet a unsinful/”Eden” version of me. I don’t recognize myself as me.
The struggle seems to be that the aim of Christian discipleship for every Jesus follower is a fundamental change in identity. This touches a massive cultural nerve when it comes to homosexuality, and it’s considered personal and objectionable from anything but the sober and Spirit-given viewpoint of the Story.

I’m glad to see the Jesus blog community struggling with this because, after having a classmate (1960′s)and much later a student (1980′s) commit suicide because they were gay and had internalized society’s hatred and the church’s condemnation (my interpretation), they had nothing to live for. For me, it is a life and death issue like abortion is to many others, and I would never participate in a church community that did not welcome and affirm the dignity of gay individuals.
Doug

Scot,
As I’ve noted Julie and I have gay Christian friends who are in committed relationships and we endeavor to be “with” them. But this thing about identity and behavior seems to open a can of worms. Imagine…
“Hi, my name is John and I AM an alcoholic.” In the recovery ministries (not necessarily Christian), you cannot say, “I am John and I drink a lot.” You confess an identity and then with help you exile yourself into sobriety or sexual health or freedom from drugs, etc.
In our current cultural milieu to advise the GLBT community to say for example, “Hi, my name is John and I am gay” assumes they will exile themselves into celibacy…unless the GLBT person is considered to be normative. Am I wrong?

I would be curious to know what constitutes the abuse mentioned above. Is it the first thought that pops into our mind of a person with (perceived) authority subjecting a victim to his/her own sexual gratification, or might more subtle forms of abuse – verbal/emotional – be included? Is there an allowance for some(/many?) who are “in denial” about such abuse?
(Knowing the history of someone I work to be “with” prompts the questions.)
(And, John, thanks for opening the can of worms that I know *I’m* too scared to open.)

One of the tensions I’m feeling as I consider what it means to “be with” is the instruction of Christ to include healing in the mission of God. Can we further the healing mission of Christ in regards to our sexuality when sexuality seems wedded to our identity?

I’m am very sympathetic here, because like others who’ve commented, I have friends who have to wrestle with this. And yet ….. the Pauline “vice lists” focus directly on conduct, and they are pretty explicit that some kinds of conduct ultimately exclude a person from the Kingdom of God (e.g., Galatians 5).
Let’s say a person has anger issues. Paul says in Galatians 5 that “outbursts of anger” is the sort of practice that excludes a person from inheriting the kingdom of God. There is probably a significant genetic / biological component to this person’s anger. Probably, the person’s father and grandfather were angry people as well. He was born with it.
So how do we come alongside that person? Do we try to help him become a “good” angry person? Do we assure him that God accepts his anger? I’m sorry, but however hard I try, I can’t think of encouraging people to live in committed homosexual relationships (or any sort of committed sexual relationship outside marriage) as much different than this example.
Now, it seems to me a different thing to say to the angry person that all his anger is nailed to the cross and forgiven, that God understands his human weaknesses, that we as his brothers and sisters will learn to understand that he will be angry and that his anger probably will not go away in this life — yet at the same time we’ll travel together towards seeing that anger transformed into the fruits of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22-26) as part of the life-long process of sanctification. It seems to me that this is the way to truly affirm this person as a whole person, because the whole person in Christ is a “new creation.” If what we are affirming is only the “old” person, we aren’t really being holistic at all.

I think it’s important when referring to someone in a gay lifestyle, to NOT refer to them as gay as in “I have a friend and he is gay.” That makes being gay their identity, we are reinforcing it, instead of keeping it to a choice to sin like we all have choices to sin. I think it’s better to refer to them as being in a homosexual lifestyle or in a homosexual relationship or that kind of thing. I don’t even think that we as sinners are safe to say “hello I’m Becky I’m a sinner,” because that excludes the identity of being in the risen Christ. Maybe “and I sin.”

I dont’ think having homosexual desires is sin, I think it is sin once it enters the sexual realm.

I don’t at all buy the idea that behavior is integral to identity. If, in total reliance upon the Father, Jesus led the most fully human life possible, and did so without having a mate, then I don’t see how Christians can assert that sexual behavior – acting on sexual desires – is necessary to fulfill one’s identity as a human being. Whether heterosexual or homosexual. That sounds more like the voice of our culture than the voice of scripture.
That isn’t intended to minimize the loneliness or suffering of someone who longs for physical intimacy with another and isn’t able to have it. But “the inability to fulfill these desires causes pain and suffering” isn’t the same thing as “my identity as a human person is compromised if I can’t act on these desires.” There are many other desires certain people have that border on compulsion – some that we believe to be at least partially genetically caused and that may never go away – that we nevertheless expect those people to control.
Ultimately, aren’t we to find our identity in Christ rather than in our physical and emotional desires, no matter how strong and deeply felt those may be?

doperback,
It seems to me the issue partly revolves around the question of whether or not the Bible’s “vice lists” are based on outdated understandings of human nature. Yes, anger certainly has a genetic component to it. But I honestly think bringing up such an example doesn’t do justice to the complexity of the issue as it pertains to sexual identity. I don’t know what the answer to this dilemma is, but what I hear from people within the GLBT community is that this is as much, if not more, about identity as it is about sexual expression.
As a friend of mine put it, what happens when someone is born with a mix of male and female that goes beyond the typical parameters? The question is: is it as simple as saying, “you look like a male so behave like one.”?
In my mind these are the roads we need to explore in this discussion.

I’m not sure that the connection between ‘behaviour’ and ‘identity’ gets right to the heart of the problem. It’s the connection between ‘sexual relationship’ and ‘identity’ that makes this so sensitive. In other words, it’s not that doing certain acts constitutes a gay identity, it’s that longing for a certain kind of sexual relationship constitutes it. I guess that the reason gay people find traditional Christian sexual ethics so problematic is not that it condemns an act, but that it condemns their sexual relationship/s, and allows for no possibility of normalizing or legitimising those relationships (in contrast to those of cohabitating heterosexual couples).
There’s no neat way round this one – ‘hate the sin, love the sinner’ just sounds too glib. In the end, I suspect, we just have to accept Jesus’ words about the cost of discipleship (which in the Sermon on the Mount extends to our sexual thoughts, not just our sex lives!)

I do hope that my comments will be considered to be a contribution to this discussion. I went to http://www.soulforce.org/article/lewis-smedes-video at the recommendation of one of this blog’s contributors. As part of an ongoing effort to determine what love looks like with my GLBT friends I was really hoping to find something there that would convince me that my reading of the NT was erroneous and that it does not say that homosexuality is a sin (“and such WERE some of you” 1 Cor 6)from which to repent, but I was disappointed.
Is it too narrow to say that one of the distinguishing marks of a Christ-follower is the desire to repent? I have read that all the NT references to “excommunication” can be boiled down NOT to a particular sin or category of sin, but to the refusal to repent. If I am to love a GLBT brother or sister, should not that love include encouraging them to repent?
At this point in my wrestling with the issue of homosexuality I do not know how to love my gay friends without admitting to them that I do not perceive this to be a culturally determined assessment of the NT writers that is not relevant today, but rather the NT gives insight for the gay person seeking to follow Christ that they are to pray for the gift of celibacy. I can barely stand the weight of this – please convince me that I am mistaken. Thank you dear brothers and sisters for working through this so lovingly.

Scot, an identity question using your terms…
Assuming that homosexuality goes beyond the mere category of “choice”…
*Is being homosexual native to one’s nature as an EIKON?
*Or does it arise from being a CRACKED Eikon?

Dopderbeck,
Would you agree that its at least *possible* that sexual orientation is more akin to race or gender than anger in terms of how closely it relates to a person’s identity? That’s certainly how the GLBT people I know perceive it, and I think we need to listen very closely to their experiences. I think you could still hold to the view that its part of the old nature, but also see that — as a practical matter — its reasonably perceived by GLBTs as not at all like anger, and much more like race or gender. I think that recognition would significantly further the dialogue between conservative christians and christian and non-christian GLBTs.
Peter (#13),
If you look at the comment section in Scot’s prior posts on this issue from last month, you will see many arguments that homosexuality is not sin (in some circumstances). I personally subscribe to that view.

Eric #15-
“I think that recognition would significantly further the dialogue between conservative christians and christian and non-christian GLBTs.”
Are you saying it further the dialogue to recognize that this is the way GLBT’s perceive it, or are you saying to recognize that homosexuality is “much more like race or gender”?

1. I find it interesting that any discussion of gay people seems to always reference their “lifestyle.”
Do we ever talk about the greedy lifestyle or the materialistic lifestyle or the workaholic lifestyle or the black lifestyle or the hispanic lifestyle? The alcoholic lifestyle? The teenage lifestyle?
Regardless of whether it is caused by nature or nurture, “lifestyle” seems to be reserved for gay people, and further, seems to be code for “way of behaving that disgusts us.”
2. If the GLBT community perceives that sexual orientation is closer to race or gender than a learned behavior, that implies either a conspiracy to deceive the straight world, a massive collective self-delusion, or actual experience.

Darren (#11): I really don’t think we want to go down the path of asking whether the “vice lists” are based on “outdated notions of human nature.” In Galations 2, for example, the vice list is contrasted with a list of virtues to draw out what ought to characterize a person who is living in the Spirit and participating in the Kingdom of God. Do we also want to say that Paul’s notion of the virtues (the fruits of the Spirit) is outdated? It’s just as legalistic to say the vice lists are “outdated” as it is to say they’re “absolute rules.”
Put another way: even if Paul had no idea that homosexuality has a biological basis — which he surely didn’t — the vice lists are not thereby superseded. Likewise, even if Paul had no idea that “spiritual” experiences of joy and peace have a biological basis — which, again, he surely didn’t — the virtue lists are not thereby superseded. These passages, in the context of the whole narrative of scripture, continue to tell us crucial things about what it means to become a “new creation” in Christ. We can construct a meaningful ethic for today that incorporates these passages, without being either legalistic or licentious (some good examples: David Gushee & Glenn Stassen, “Kingdom Ethics”; Richard Hays, “The Moral Vision of the New Testament”).

Rick — both would be great, but I am making only the more limited request: Please at least recognize that when a conservative christian says that homosexuality is sin, it is reasonably perceived by a GLBT as a criticism of their identity, much more so than if you simply criticized them as an angry person. If you are focused on promoting the dialogue (which I think we should be), I think that would help.
A separate but related point: If you didn’t recognize the Bible as authoritative (or your particular reading as authoritative), wouldn’t you think the GLBT position makes a lot more sense on this question? Its much more like race or gender than anger? I’m not suggesting that you actually throw out the Bible; just trying to bridge the gap in understanding; to promote the dialogue.

Eric-
Thanks for the clarification.

I think we can’t decide what we do with someone in a gay lifestyle until we are close with one. From this distance it’s hard to formulate if knowing someone gay means spurring them to repentance because it depends on what God has you to be in their life. For me I kept hearing quite clearly that I was to just love them. They had been burned by the church and were watching me and didn’t need judgment from me, they’d experienced that too much. My part was just to love them and leave the rest up to God. He may call another person to bring up repentance. But emphasis that this is a one on one thing and deciding what to do depends on who the person is and the dynamic of the relationship. One of my friends in the lesbian lifestyle ended up telling me they wanted my spirituality. Now if that didn’t open a door.

Eric (#15): you said: “Would you agree that its at least *possible* that sexual orientation is more akin to race or gender than anger in terms of how closely it relates to a person’s identity?”
I respond: Two observations here. First: I’m not sure it’s so easy to play armchair psychologist, I’m not sure what the criteria would be for assessing this claim empirically, and I’m not sure what framework we’d apply here regarding the question of “identity.” It seems to me that this is an enormous theoretical and empirical question that is unlikely to be susceptible to simple answers either way.
Second: Having said that, I’m not sure that it matters much in terms of the underlying question of the “rightness” of the conduct. Here’s a more specific example: what about the identities of, say, “Emo” teenagers. I suspect that (even with my hesitations above about theoretical and empirical underdetermination) for many Emo teenagers, “anger” is just as central to their “identity” as “sexuality” is for many gay people. Indeed, “fits of rage” might apply very well, if you’ve ever seen the kids at an Emo band’s performance.
How do I best enter into the world of Emo teenagers in order to incarnate Christ’s love? In what ways can we encourage Emo teenagers to see their identities transformed in Christ? I don’t think it involves requiring them immediately to stop wearing tight black jeans and tongue studs, or lobbying for laws to ban drop-D tuning on electric guitars. I do think it involves trying to understand their anger and perhaps to help them begin to see that as an anger about the right things (injustice) or as an energy that can break through into unique expressions of peace and joy. At some point, maybe that means suggesting to them alternatives to screaming, “die, you F****ing pig” into the microphone.
Anyway, I don’t pretend I know who this works out with tough issues of sexual identity. Still, I think it must be more than just acceptance or affirmation of conduct.

Perhaps I need to read the book to get a better idea, but this is an issue which has always been rather confusing to me. I understand that being homosexual is part of a person’s identity. I understand that it may be/seem unreasonable to ask someone not to act on their sexual desires. However, the strong link between behavior and identity which I hear expressed by many homosexuals is something that just doesn’t make sense to me. As a heterosexual, I can (and have in the past) pretty easily imagine having a life which doesn’t and perhaps never will include sexual partnering. If, heaven forbid, my husband died and I knew that God was calling me to remain single for the remainder of my days, I just can’t see how that would affect my identity. Is it different for people who are homosexual? I’m not at all trying to be obtuse or difficult or critical; I just really don’t get it.

dopderbeck (#22),
You are testing my limited (non-existent?) pop culture knowledge with the reference to Emo teens!
But I’ve never heard of an Emo teen praying to God constantly that He remove their anger, or of an Emo teen commiting suicide over the issue when the prayer wasn’t answered. I have seen and heard of that a lot, however, with respect to LGBTs. Those things suggest pretty strongly to me that LGBT is very different from anger, even Emo anger. And as for empirical evidence and frameworks, I think the love of Christ calls us to make decisions sometimes without such info. I think that Scot is correct that Andrew Marin has earned the right to be heard on these issues based on his experience, and we should listen to him, as well as our LGBT brothers and sisters. (And I think Scot suggested that Andrew is sitting on a bunch of data on this issue).
In any event, I like what you say in the second to last paragraph — particularly that “I do think it involves trying to understand their anger . . . .” I’d suggest that part of that attempted understanding includes listenining carefully and respecting what they say about how this seems (and reasonably seems, I would add) like we are questioning identity.

chaplain mike-
That is the question that I struggle with the most as I try and understand scriptures teaching on this. I have a hard time understanding homosexuality as part of our pre-fallen nature. Interested in other thoughts on this as well.

Some years ago before the medical model was widely accepted (and the mentally ill were…, but that’s another story) alcoholics were considered weak-willed or willfully evil by most of society and as sinners by the church. Many churches did not welcome alcoholics and- this is a guess on my part (anyone know?)- alcoholics were more likely to commit suicide because they had internalized society’s hatred and the church’s condemnation.
Fast forward…for almost two generations the American Medical Association and American Psychological Association have declared homosexuality to be a normal variant, but the Church mostly still hangs on to an outdated model of “disordered” or willfully sinful behavior. Even in biology 101 in 1960, I learned, as Kinsey had reported in his much earlier biology text, that homosexuality was a normal variant in primates. My wife and I find the church’s part in the long history of physical and mental abuse of homosexuals very repugnant as does everyone here, but how many seem willing to take the next step? Thank you Andrew Marin! I hope and pray Scot will follow….. I’ve had classmates and students commit suicide because they internalized the mistaken and abusive conventional wisdom of society and the church. I’ll bet you have also.
Doug

doperdeck (#22)
While not claiming to have a full grasp on internal psychology either, I have come to know gay and lesbians for whom their sexual identity is more analogous to race/gender, etc. This is alittle misleading though, because as an African American I know even race is not always as pressing an identity issue for those we assume must be most affected by it. But in the very least, the people I’m referring to have a comfort level with their identity which makes the emo and anger examples a tough fit.
I will say this. Without discarding the weight of Scriptural arguments, I think its worth pausing to note the enormity of what we ask GBLT folks to do when they become Christian, and the few resources we offer to deal with it. I’m getting married in a few weeks, I’m thankful and blessed beyond belief to join hands with the wonderful woman God has called me to. At the same time I’ve been thinking about how so much of our identity in this society (and in most others) is wrapped around having a spouse and/or having children. Both our cultural and theological imagination have been ceased by images which make these two kinds of relationship part of “the good life”. In that sense, sexual identity is not merely behavioral, or easily dispensible.
To me, hypothetically speaking, if we are going to commend celibacy to an entire class of people, its going to take some serious adjustment in our theology and ecclesiology. For instance, we may need to deemphasize some of the images of marriage and parenthood which we put up on a pedestal and begin to emphasize new ones which aren’t so alienating and assure that GLBTs or anyone else we commend celibacy to are still wrapped in a blanket of lifegiving relationships that make the Kingdom of God something even they would want to risk their lives to participate in. That may be asking alot. But of course we are also asking alot of them in return. This rethinking is the benefit to me of the Power of With, and I feel we are being faith by tossing and turning with it.

Doug Allen,
Are you comfortable letting science make the determination on what it normative behavior? Science does well to help us to understand our world as it is today, but doesn’t really account for the fall.
Also, could you help me understand what you are saying with the alcoholism comparison. I think churches do a better job helping alcoholics today, but I don’t think any say alcoholism is ok. What is it you are saying our response should be.
eric

Eric,
As I understand the term, normative referes to a mathamatical norm such as the fat part of a bell curve, so homosexuality is not normal just as green eyes (or even blue) are not the norm. However, according to medical science, homosexuals can be normal in every other way if not too terribly wounded by society’s hatred and the church’s condemnation. There’s a difference between natural and normal, and the American Psychiatric Society and American Psychological Society both declared homosexuality a natural variation more than 30 years ago. Previously, it had been listed as a mental or emotional disorder. Am I comfortable in letting the psychology and medical professions decide what is natural and what is disordered? Yes.
The alcoholic comparison. This comparison no longer is about what is natural (unlike homosexuality, alcoholism (and other addictions)are, according to both APAs physical/mental/emotional disorders which those medical and psychological associations treat as a disease (the medical model). Because most everyone now subscribes to the medical model when it comes to addictions, most individuals and churches welcome alcoholics (many AA and NA groups are held at churches), and that welcoming and treating alcoholics with dignity and love (and teaching them of God’s love and forgiveness) creates an important part of the self-esteem which builds the necessary self reliance and determination to move beyond their adiction. Not so many years ago (pre-medical model) when society and churches condemned the alcoholic for his/her lack of will power or willful sinning, and churches did not even welcome alcoholics, the church played an unhelpful role which reinforced the hatred and stereotyping of alcoholics. Do you think this hatred by society and condemnation by the church helped either the church members to be more loving and charitable or the alcoholics to be more sober? Here’s where the analogy breaks down. Alcoholics need to overcome their addiction in order to experience healthy relationships of love and commitment. We all agree on that, I think. Homosexuals (according to both APAs and the anecdotal experience of most people who have gay friends) need to be treated with dignity and with love and affirmation of their orientation if they are going to experience healthy relationships of love and commitment. Society’s hatred and the church’s condemnation neither helps us church members to be more loving and charitable or our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters to be normal (in ways other than sexual orientation).
Eric, I hope it’s a little clearer now?
Doug

I think that in lots of ways, we feel the strongest sense of identity about that which we have been persecuted for. So being a hetero-sexual doesn’t carry a lot of feelings of identity for me because it’s never been something I’ve had to justify, nor has it in any way alienated me. But I’ve been alienated for being a bit of a computer nerd type, and when that happens you have two choices: it can either become something about yourself that you want to change, in order that you can once again participate in the social environment – or it becomes something that defines something of who you are, at least internally. And if you have a few people to hang out with, who are all alienated from the broader community for the same reason: it stands to reason that it becomes a key part of your identity.

In case its confusing to anyone, I thought I’d point out that there are two Erics posting above. (And we seem to disagree with each other, which increases the confusion!) Anyway, this Eric agrees with you Doug.

While I’m still awake and agonizing over this, let me reply to a part of Scot’s initial statement which I think is very wrong and also illustrative of how gays react to society’s hatred and the church’s condemnation. Scot says-
“The most controversial conclusion Andrew Marin has come to…is the connection in the gay community between personal identity and sexual behavior.” Scot, does Marin say behavior or orientation? Most gay kids are aware of their orientaion long before they ever engage in sexual behavior. Most college professors, school teachers, guidance counselers where I taught were aware of the thoroughly documented fact that many adolescent gay kids commit suicide or attempt to before they have ever engaged in sexual behavior. These kids are so wounded, so isolated, and feel so hopeless because of their orientation resulting from the mutually reinforcing, dehumanizing attitutes of a hating society and condemning church and not because of their behavior. Some don’t live long enough to engage in sexual behavior.
Doug

scot, this book sounds intriguing and the discussion you’re sparking here is great. i can’t tell you how many frustrating conversations i’ve had with christians who can’t get past the “for” or “against” thing, and as someone who has several good friends in the LGBT community, i don’t have time for that debate. i’m too busy loving my friends and trying to undo their perception that christians hate them…
i’m also really excited for your new perspective series because i just wrote a long paper on it! i’m a college student studying abroad in ireland, where i’m taking some theology classes (even though i’m an english major). so the discussion is still very fresh in my mind…

This connection between sexual behaviour and identity is not only a challenge in is this debate
basically you can say that most people working with identity would say like this: you are what you do.
So it is not only a debate on sexual behaviour and identity but the whole identity discussion is today linked to actions. So that makes it a big challenge when we in churches are saying i hate what you do but i like you. Those two things cant be seperated. We have to thinj about what our language is actually communicating

Thanks for the clarification Doug.
also sorry if there was confusion with the names.

Quote:I think we can’t decide what we do with someone in a gay lifestyle until we are close with one. Endquote.
Repeat after me: Homosexuality is NOT a “lifestyle.” Using that terminology already tells me that the speaker isn’t taking me seriously as a gay person. Crunchy-granola livng is my lifestyle. Part-time studenthood is my lifestyle. My sexual orientation is not a lifestyle. What do you not understand about this?
Quote: One of my friends in the lesbian lifestyle ended up telling me they wanted my spirituality. Now if that didn’t open a door. Endquote.
Two of my partnered gay friends are, respectively, a parish pastor and a professional theologian. They practice the Benedictine Rule as a couple, meaning that they pursue an intentional lifestyle (are you getting the distinction now?) based on a balance of prayer, study, work, hospitality and “holy” recreation. A lesbian friend of mine is a gifted singer and musicologist who joyfully shares her love of God, love of sacred music and her vocal talents with her church and online. Two other lesbian friends of mine are parish pastors. A gay friend of mine balances the demands of a secular day job with his love of God, keen interest in theology and gifts of service to his church as a lay assistant. Now, if those things don’t open doors…
Please stop making distinctions between being gay and being Christian. One can be both. I am. These Christians are.

Doug Allen said, “homosexuals can be normal…if not too terribly wounded by society’s hatred and the church’s condemnation…and the American Psychiatric Society and American Psychological Society both declared homosexuality a natural variation more than 30 years ago. Previously, it had been listed as a mental or emotional disorder. Am I comfortable in letting the psychology and medical professions decide what is natural and what is disordered? Yes.”
So post-modernism was/is supposed to be a reaction to the idea that we can scientifically know all the answers to life’s questions objectively. Why are you still holding on to that modern construct, when as recently as 30 years ago, the scientific community vacillated on this subject? If they go back to their previous understanding, would you do a 180? It seems to me that psychology can be the least “scientific” of all scientific disciplines. Consequently, it becomes the most vulnerable to promoting agendas with an almost absolute authority. Not that we should reject everything these organizations claim outright, but shouldn’t they at least be open to some suspicion?

I like the real AND productive discussion going on here. I need some clarification. What does GLBT stand for? Gay and Lesbian _____ _____? What is chp?
I am very interested in what so-called Christians are doing to and saying about what they often term “others” (sadly). I am a mainstream protestant trained in leading seminary-type long-distance classes intended to equip lay persons to support their church leadership and/or to seek licensed ministries of their own.
I was a female adolescent with tendencies toward same sex interests, but never overtly acted on them. I found it confusing and isolating. Of course I also kept these feelings very private–until… I was invited into my pastor’s office to talk (in a non-denominational church). He (married with 8 children) proceeded to tear a two-inch phone book in half. I was apparently supposed to be impressed. The pastor opened the topic of sexual interest. I didn’t feel I was attractive and was not dating. I had graduated high school, but I told him how I struggled with my eyes always gravitating toward the female body while I was in school. This honest comment resulted in our conversation quickly ending and I left. Within months I discovered he was seducing the single women of the church–including my roommate! Looking back, these frustrating thoughts and my honesty had “saved” me from worse!
I had prayed ferverently for the same-sex thoughts to stop and they did. As an adult, I prayed with those suffering from AIDS one-on-one in a healing service at my (mainstream) home church. While living in a metropolitan area, I was aware of a home-based church meeting the spiritual needs of disenfranchized gays and lesbians led by a ordained woman and her husband (she had also been deeply wounded by the church). I’m also aware of a healing opportunity offered in a mega-church for those seeking ‘deliverance’ from deep hurts, hang ups, compulsive behaviors, habits, abuse, etc. The minister expected alcoholics, smokers, gamblers, battered wives, etc., to show up. Of all nine people who came, every single one wanted to be free from homosexuality, feeling it was incongruent with their relationship to God.
My two youngest brothers (at age 5 and 6) were molested by a homosexual ‘boyfriend’ of my oldest sister. The offender later died from AIDS before we knew what he did. One brother grew up to rape his 5-yr-old niece. (This was discovered past the statutes of limitations). The other is celibate and working in a christian ministry organization. Although trained as a youth leader, he refuses to pursue it.
The pain so-called christians have inflicted is appalling. I am frustrated and I am seeking a way to teach my community and classmates a healthy attitude and welcoming rhetoric toward all the imperfect christians (including myself), their imperfect churches and teachings (including mine), homosexuals, and christian homosexuals. Does anyone have recommended reading that might help me with this goal?

Dino-
We may be the last two left on this thread. Your question is greater than any answer anyone could give on it, but instead of leaving it alone, I’ll throw out Brian McLaren’s “A New Kind of Christian.” It doesn’t directly do what you’re asking, but it does a great job of setting the tone for the conversation you’re looking to have.
I haven’t read it, but it sounds like the book in question on this thread would help you too.
I’m praying for you, your family and your community.
Grace & Peace.

Dino and Kenton,
Last three!
Dino,
GLBT. B stands for bisexual and T for transgendered. Your chp threw me for a while, but reread Scot’s into. Stands for chapter!
Kenton,
While thinking about your question I googled and found that medical model now has many meanings. When I took graduate courses in biology and psychology, medical model refered to the medical paradigm (or bio-medical paradigm) of understanding physical and mental illness based on natural causes versus the old paradigm based on demons as the cause of physical and mental illness. The bio-medical paradigm has much earlier antecedents, but gained momentum starting around 1875 (germ theory) and was becoming mainstream medical understanding before WWI. The advances in medical understanding during the 20th century that broadened the medical model to include mental ilness (and remove homosexuality as a disorder) are fascinating, but beyond this conversation. I writing this in order to show you that it’s highly unlikely the medical profession will return to the earlier model or reverse itself on the nature of homosexuality. And to both Erics… Lot’s of things about this topic are confusing to us mere mortals! EricS. I’m not the one to comment on how our fallen state affects the understanding of this topic. Both Scot and RJS have blogged on this in the past. I’m sure though that fallen state refers to all of us and not just a “them.” Scot will review another chp soon, so maybe we can continue then.
Doug

Doug-
It was purely a hypothetical, buddy. I wasn’t suggesting that the positions would be reversed – I’m sure never will, only that the profession making the claim doesn’t have some absolute authority in making it. My background is electrical engineering. One of the things my training allows me to see quickly is how things passed as scientific too often lack adequate control. And medicine is as much an art form as it is a science. (My doctors don’t “engineer” medicine, they “practice” it.)
But the point of this series is getting past our “for” and “against”, is it not? It’s getting past the science, and not getting worked up about which side the science is on. Some of us need to move past the “homosexuals are as mentally ill (and the mental health profession is nuts)” rhetoric (“against”), and others need to move past the “homosexuals are perfectly normal” rhetoric (“for”), and everyone needs to move to the “My [friends/family members] are gay, now what?” rhetoric (“with”).

doperback,
I’m not sure I understand your position. One the one hand you freely admit that Paul had a limited understanding of the biological underpinning of certain aspects of human nature, and yet you want to say that the vice lists he describes are nevertheless still fully in force?
I’m not sure how you get here. Generally your previous JC comments suggest you have a pretty nuanced view of scripture. So I’m not sure I get your “if it says it, it still applies” principle, regardless of later developments in the understanding of human nature. Care to clarify?