questions for heterosexuals
I really liked this post:
1. What do you think is the cause of your heterosexuality?
2. When did you first realise you might be heterosexual
3. Have you told your parents? What did they think of it?
4. Are there others like you in your family?
5. Don’t you think your heterosexuality might be a phase you are going though?
6. Are you afraid of your own sex?
7. Is it not possible that what you need is a really good gay lover?
Go to steve’s place for the rest of the list.
June 17th, 2004 at 10:56 pm
I’m curious why you liked it.
June 18th, 2004 at 12:02 am
I can tell you why I like it. It’s part of an identification excercise. For many people who are gay, exclusion and ostracisation are key features of their experiences, and far too often the church contributes to that.
I believe it’s possible to believe, as many Christians do, that homesexuality is wrong, whilst not being homophobic. Nevertheless many Christians are prejudice against gay people, and use their faith as a justification for it. Other people are insensitive though lack of understanding.
These questions are designed to put you on the spot - and feel how it might be, to have someone you’ve just met asking intrusive questions, and making ignorant assumptions.
Believeing something is wrong is one thing, being comfortable with discrimnation and prejudice as a result of that is not - and that why I like these. Steve
June 18th, 2004 at 5:33 am
These questions are designed to put you on the spot - and feel how it might be, to have someone you’ve just met asking intrusive questions, and making ignorant assumptions.
Sorry, I don’t get it. I’ve spent my entire life asking intrusive questions to people I’ve just met (it’s my job). As for ignorant assumptions, well, that makes the world go around, doesn’t it?
http://arguewithsigns.net/mt/archives/001506.html
The questions don’t put me on the spot. They are too cute by half.
This also puzzles me:
I believe it’s possible to believe, as many Christians do, that homesexuality is wrong, whilst not being homophobic. Nevertheless many Christians are prejudice against gay people, and use their faith as a justification for it. Other people are insensitive though lack of understanding.
How do you separate the two? How can one be one without being accused of being the other? I’m curious, because I’d like to think that I’m the former, but I’d be accused of being the latter.
June 18th, 2004 at 6:16 am
They are cute, and I think I wrote that on my blog when I posted them, so I agree with that - but for me they make the point.
On the separation: maybe it’s wishful thinking, because most of my friends in church would hod to that position.
Still, I think that it’s possible to come to an honest conclusion that homosexuality is wring in the eyes of God, and yet not allow that to affact how you treat people who are gay, and more than any sin would affect how you treat anyone else.
I would hope that I could bring my gay friends to church, where people do disagree, and not have people jump on them or shun them.
On the other hand a lot of Christians wouldn;t do that. and in their defence against accusatsions of prejudice often do fall and play into the same old inaccurate stereotypes.
I’ve spoken about this with a couple of my gay friends, and whilst they would still be impacted by someone who beleived that, they recognise the personal integrity there. Not everyone would, but I think it’s a good place to be.
Make any sense? Steve
June 18th, 2004 at 8:57 am
I agree that some of them are a bit cute. I don’t know that they would be cute if it weren’t just an exercise.
But I think that the idea is a good one. I believe that the church generally elevates some sins/behaviours/issues over others, and I have commented on this before. One of the reasons I believe this happens for the issues like homosexuality is that it is easy to slip into “us and them” mode - the behaviour is engaged in by a discrete group of people that we can point at and name, whilst there is a minimal chance that we will be in that group some time in the future.
So I like the idea of trying to place ourselves in the other position and gauge whether we are engaging with the issue in a sensitive way.
June 18th, 2004 at 10:56 am
Steve,
There is no problem of bringing anyone to church as long as they are willing to repent of the sins they committ whether that is lying, homosexuality, adultery, fornication etal.
It is something we all had to do and if honest continue to do each day and particularly on Sunday
June 18th, 2004 at 5:07 pm
Homer,
We do all have to repent, continually, but God tends to work on us in stages. God accepts me as a work in progress, and when I became a Christian we began a slow process of working on different things, some are only just coming up, and while some came up straight away.
Very often the church does exactly what you say though and demands that anyone coming to church repents of any and every ‘visible’ sin, instantly, and as if dealt with forever.
That’s not God’s way, he allows us to be real people. I like to do the same. That’s not pretending about what we believe is a sin and what is not, it’s simply letting people be while we learn who they are, and as they begin to process that we are all in of finding God and becoming more like Jesus.
As a pre-emtive for your quoting of Jesus ’sin no more’, I’m not Jesus, neither are you. Jesus has a special authority and presence that none of us have fully. He also said that he did only what his father taught him, - and I suspect that there are many people he didn’t address so directly. On the same basis I would address some stuff instantly, only if my father tells me so.
Certainly the disciples lives (if we only go on the text itself), with unadressed pride for a long time, - and as I’ve heard you say a number of times, one sin isn’t elevated above others.
Steve
June 19th, 2004 at 10:27 am
Still, I think that it’s possible to come to an honest conclusion that homosexuality is wring in the eyes of God, and yet not allow that to affact how you treat people who are gay, and more than any sin would affect how you treat anyone else.
I think that’s possible, and I hope that would be the way I would approach things. I don’t currently have any homosexual friends - that I know of (I refuse to use the term “gay”), although I have had some in the past.
But I think you run the risk of not actually standing against things that are wrong in this approach. To give you an example: sex outside of marriage. If you believe it is wrong, and you continue to be friends with people who are engaging in that behavior - and never mention that you think it’s wrong - how do they know that it’s wrong? Do you just “wait until it clears up” and hope they come to their senses, despite the fact that you believe it is damaging to their spiritual lives? Or do you just ignore the whole issue, and treat them as if they were just a boyfriend and girlfriend (or even as if they were married)? If so, aren’t you just deluding yourself and them?
I don’t believe we’re all perfect, or that we are all sinless every time we leave the sanctuary. I don’t say this about homosexuality exclusively, either. And I would somewhat disagree with Dan’s “us and them” explanation. Homosexuality is similar to adultery and divorce in that these are “sin questions” that deal with sexuality, the most personal thing outside of prayer that a person does with another human being. Sexuality is one point at which we are really at one with the creator, engaged in the creative act of (possibly) creating another human being (leaving aside the issue of birth control). So naturally, sins and societal changes that surround that are going to be of particular concern. I know a number of churches that preach as strongly against adultery and divorce as tehy do against homosexual marriage (perhaps even stronger).
On the other hand, I think it is impossible these days to have a situation like you propose and really state your oppositional belief.
This is probably rambling. Sorry.
June 20th, 2004 at 1:19 am
Hi Brian
I agree there is that line which is easy to cross. If it was a good friend of mine who got into an adulterous relationship, then I’m sure I would talk to him about it. If it was someone I had just met though - well, I don’t even know them, how can I speak into their life unless God specifically asks me to?
It does make life harder than just shouting at them, and the risk you mention is real, but I think we have to walk these lines to be like Jesus.
Out of curisoisty - why don’t you use the word GAY. As I understand it it’s an anacronym of Good As You, from the 60’s, which is certainly true. Be interested to know? Steve
Steve
June 20th, 2004 at 9:08 pm
Steve,
Are you trying to say that you repent of some sin and at some stag down the track you may repent of some more?
June 21st, 2004 at 4:15 am
I’m not trying to say anything. What I am saying, is that I don’t feel the need to blast every non-christian I meet with a full list of their sins, obvious and non-obvious as soon as I meet them.
I would go furthr than that and say that when people become Christians or start seeking Jesus and what it means to follow him, we don’t drop the full weight of the ‘law’ on them instantly. I’m not suggesting anyone changes teachings, but talking about pesonal contact.
When you became a jew (god fearing gentile as closest comparrison I guess ) you instantly had to adhere to every single little detail of the mosaic law, (and crucialy it’s interpretation by the current day teachers).
I’ve seen new christians treated in the same way, a scalding personal review of their private lives with people they don’t knows and don’t want poking around there yet. The way I look at it, is that the law is written on our hearts now, and our hearts are much more tender and fragile.
God takes his time in challenging us on stuff. He works at his own pace, and that we can (just about) handle, and of course it’s our choice whether or nto to accept that challenge.
I for one don’t want to change what I teach in public to accomodate others, but at the same time, don’t feel I have the authority to personally blast my way uninvited into other peoples lives. That come gradually, in stages, with trust and relationship.
June 21st, 2004 at 10:51 am
Steve,
It seems to me your slant devalues how bad sin is. God hates sin but loved us so much that while we were still sinners allowed Jesus to bear the punishment of our sins on the cross.
His ressurection showed he was without sin.
When we cry out abba when we become christians we realise how sinful we are and thus the need to repent. since we do this daily equally we need to repent daily.
This has nothing to do with the law except to remember it is the Ten Commandments which show us how sinful we are.
June 21st, 2004 at 11:53 am
Amen to that Homer. That’s where we are though these days from so many places within the church. This not wanting to tell it like it is for fear of offending. Lets water it down, this whole bit about sin, so its more palatable for people to digest. Hey, you can have Christ and you don’t even need to change. False hope.
I saw a quote recently that said that the modern gospel message from so many places is so watered down that even the non-elect can’t reject it. How true that is.
It all comes down to our selfishness. Our selfishness is what allows us to continue in sin and downplay it and hey, I’m not so bad, I’m a pretty good person. This is just a thing I have that I can’t do anything about. I was born this way. Selfishness and self gratification is what will drive me to continue in my sin and somehow rationalize it and think I’m ok with God.
Doesn’t quite work that way though does it? The Bible is very clear. God’s Word is the same today as back when it was written, just as valid and binding. The church needs to rediscover the truths of God’s Word and offer the people real and lasting hope. There needs to be revival in the church.
Oh, what life and freedom awaits for those who seek repentance. The freedom that only comes in submission and surrender to Christ. That’s where the church needs to return to Dan.
At our church today we had eight people baptized. Each one testified about how they came to Christ. About what their life had been like before Christ but then the incredible freedom that they encountered as they repented of their sin and received Christ as Lord and Saviour. The repenting thing was key. Only in repentance can we experience life as God intends. A relationship with Him where we begin to see God at work as we continue in a life of submission. More of Him and less of self.
That’s what it is all about folks. You can rationalize your sin all you want and as long as you continue to do so you cannot experince the freedom and comfort and hope that a surrendered life receives. He’s waiting for you. He’s calling you to repentance.
Here’s a challenge for those of you struggling with your sin, whatever it might be. Believe me I speak from experience, I was so messed up in sin, sexual sin, lust, all that. I knew I was messed up. I knew I had to change. But for the longest time I refused because I thought I couldn’t change and I’d miss out on all the fun. What a joke that was. Never once did my sinful desires ever bring me to a place of peace and contentment and joy and I’m so happy in what I’m doing. It was all self gratification.
But oh how all that has changed as I now try day by day to live a surrendered life. Temptations are still there but God is now my strength and leads my paths. I try to acknowledge Him in all I do because His Word tells me that if I do that then He will direct my paths. He shows up in so many ways. He reveals more of Himself to me as I try to live in obedience to Him. Thats in His Word also. He discloses more to those who obey his commandments and trust Him alone. Jesus said that.
Ok back to the challenge and then, I’m out of here. Those of you who are struggling in sin and you know who you are. Get back into God’s Word. Start in the gospel of John. Before you read pray to God that he would meet you as you come to Him in His Word. Read a chapter a day. Meditate on it. Pray about it. As you pray ask God to convict you of your sin and tell Him you desire to have new life in Him. If you are honest and your motives are pure, expect that God will meet you. Right where you are. And then it doesn’t matter what your circumstances are because as He comes into your life by His Spirit your new life will begin. Those of us that have received that new life can testify to the wonder of it all. That God would accept a sinner like me is overwhelming. But He did and for that I am forever grateful. He will accept you too. His Word is full of the promises for those who repent of their sin and receive Christ by faith.
The key is honesty. You can’t fool God. You can’t say one thing and do another because of course He sees it all. He knows your thoughts. The key is honesty.
Sorry for the lengthy post but God is so good and I just want to share what He has done in my life and have you know what he can do for you. Its all about surrender.
Have a great week everyone.
June 21st, 2004 at 11:57 am
I think George just did an altar call on our blog.
June 21st, 2004 at 12:07 pm
If that’s what you want to call it Dan I hope that’s not a problem
When I said above about disclosing more I meant to say He discloses more of Himself
John 14
21 “(1) He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and (2) he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will (3) disclose Myself to him.”
June 21st, 2004 at 12:52 pm
Always in these conversations, we seem to speak at cross purposes. Some of the commentators have rightly pointed out the burden on us as christ-followers to repent of our sin and seek forgiveness. But the next step of the argument is that we should then have as our foremost priority ensuring that others repent of their sin.
To me, this isn’t what the gospel is about. Jesus’ example is of a man who constantly, repeatedly broke bread with, served and engaged with people that were considered to be less important, less worthy etc etc. To me the gospel is about “the least of these”. So, if we think that someone is unrepentant, a sinner or basically a bad person, then it seems to me that those are the people that we should be demonstrating the love of God to most fully.
June 21st, 2004 at 1:24 pm
Amen to that Dan, but where will that ultimately take us? As I demontrate the love of God to that person and they ask me about the hope that I have, what do I then tell them? What will my answer be?
Its going to be about how I saw my need to repent and ask God for forgiveness and how He did just that and gave me new life.
So lets say that person is gay that I am talking to and loving and sharing my testimony with. And I know that the person is living in sin and needs to repent. How would you suggest I get that point across. Its different when you just read the words, but I think I would try as lovingly as I could to share with that person about Christ’s amazing love, but that it is only in turning away from our sin that He will come into our life.
To trust God to change him as he (or she) repents and receives Christ by faith.
Lets get back to the basics Dan, out with the new and in with the old. What do you say?
I’m off to sleep here in Canada its 1123pm, I’ll check in with you tomorrow. Cheers
June 21st, 2004 at 2:15 pm
Dan you are confusing evangelism with the church.
On the cross which of the two prisoners recieved forgiveness. The one who realised his sin and implicitly repented of it.
We are to evangelise to all as all are sinners as we were. That is why Christianity is such a humbling experience it has nothing to do with us it has to do what Jesus did.
On the other hand Church is made up of people who have been born again. Paul for example makes it quite clear that people who do not repent of their sins cannot continue in church.
The only diference between christians and non-christians is forgiveness. Our behaviour should reflect that forgiveness.
June 21st, 2004 at 3:15 pm
What does ‘repent’ mean?
I know what I mean when I say it (something like ‘changing direction to be more Godly’) but I’m not always sure others mean the same thing. For example I would never say can’t bring someone to church unless they are willing to repent.
June 22nd, 2004 at 6:38 am
Nigel here’s the dictionary definition of repent
re·pent1 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-pnt)
v. re·pent·ed, re·pent·ing, re·pents
v. intr.
To feel remorse, contrition, or self-reproach for what one has done or failed to do; be contrite.
To feel such regret for past conduct as to change one’s mind regarding it: repented of intemperate behavior.
To make a change for the better as a result of remorse or contrition for one’s sins.
June 22nd, 2004 at 9:55 am
I agree with George natually.
Let us look at an example.
We see David repenting of his sinful conduct with regard to Bathsheeba after been shown his sin by Nathan.
to Dan, Phil whoever how about a comment on Tom Frame’s turnaround on Iraq!
June 22nd, 2004 at 10:25 am
Does God ever repent?
June 22nd, 2004 at 12:26 pm
Well, the bible did say that God “repented that he had made man,” when you look at the flood narrative. He said that he repented about leading the people of Israel out of egypt, swearing to raise up a new nation out of Moses (but was talked out of that by Moses).
To Steve (I hope he’s still reading after all the sermons), the reason I don’t use “gay” is that it was a purposeful linguistic slight by homosexual activists to shift the terminology of their struggle away from a clinical, descriptive term, to a non-clinical, squishy, affirmative term. The “Good As You” legend sounds a little too good to be true, but if you have some sources, I’d like to see them for info’s sake (no sarcasm intended).
As such, I refuse to cede the ground. It’s a lot like the abortion debate. People who want legal abortions prefer “pro-choice.” People who want to ban abortion prefer “pro-life.” Neither term adequately describes either side, and often obscures the debate.
Part of this comes from my background in journalism. I am also suspect of people who throw the term “fundamentalist” around too loosely.
Same thing with “gay.” Gay says absolutely nothing (neither does “straight,” for that matter - although it provides a good linguistic contrast for the more “liberated” term “gay”).
The use of the term “gay” was a very important victory in the homosexual rights movement’s designs to assimilate their practices into society. Now, you look at any major media outfit, and they all use “gay,” because it’s punchier, shorter, and brighter than “homosexual.”
As an aside, if Gay really means “Good As You,” then why did it not come to represent lesbians as well? (homosexual fits both men and women - and lesbian sounds much more gentile as well).
Anyway, long roundabout way to say why I (a heterosexual) do not use the term “gay” for homosexuals. Hope it answers your question.
June 22nd, 2004 at 12:37 pm
Ooh, a question to answer. A quick google got me the consensus which is summarised on this page. Other links agree.
The word “gay” for homosexual is cited as early as the 1930s in stage and literature. Consensus that it didn’t originate with Good As You, but rather came from the term “gaycat” or “geycat” which was hobo slang for a tramp who was new to the hobo lifestyle and often partnered with an older more experienced tramp who would “show him the ropes” so to speak.
Sorry, you can go back to talking about repenting now.
June 22nd, 2004 at 12:43 pm
Hey Dan, how aout a response to my questions above about how do we show God’s love to a sinner that needs to repent?
June 22nd, 2004 at 1:33 pm
Nigel,
God is without sin indeed he hates sin.
If he was sinful there would have been no reason for Jesus as Heaven would be a sinful place not a sinless place
June 22nd, 2004 at 1:55 pm
Homer: Quick comment on Tom Frame.
I am always impressed with people who have the ability to change their mind so publically. His article was extremely well written and his reasons articulated well. Of course it helps that he now agrees with me
June 22nd, 2004 at 2:41 pm
Ok I repent, I wasn’t being entirely transparent, when I asked about God repenting, because I already knew about the biblical references to God repenting.
The Hebrew meaning of repenting emphasises the “turning” and “returning” aspect of repenting.
The book of Ezekiel is a wonderful example of this.
1) God has a covenant with the people that if they follow God’s way, he will bless them and they will live long in the land etc and if they don’t there are curses.
2) But the people turn from the covenant - repent of the covenant if you will - and so the people break the covenant, and everything starts going wrong.
3) God, through the prophet, keeps calling people to turn back – repent – with the promise that if they turn back, God will accept them again - but they wont.
4) So (Ezekiel 36) God, even though without sin, finds he cannot stay wholly true to the covenant, because he cares more for the people than the letter of the law. God decides that if the people won’t repent and return to him, he will do the moving and return - repent if you will - to the people of his promised land. So God turning from the covenant to Israel decides NOT to curse as the covenant stipulated, but bless them anyway even though they don’t deserve it!
Wow! Could it be that God is holy, not because he hates and punishes sin, but because he loves so greatly? However high an opinion we have of God’s awesome perfectness and completeness, how much greater must God’s compassion and self-giving be if God is prepared to put that aside to get down and dirty with us sinful plebs? Would such a shift in our perception of God have any bearing on the way we discriminate on the basis of sexuality?
June 22nd, 2004 at 9:16 pm
nige, He does both ie hate sin and love people such as us even though we act as we hate him.
God doesn’t discriminate in terms of sexuality he discriminates in terms of people who have sex outside of marriage.
Mind you he also discriminates on whether you believe Jesus died for your sins or not.
June 23rd, 2004 at 6:14 am
Re: Gay.
I would note that the place you cite does mention that the term was adopted by homosexual activists in the 1960s.
“This is not the case. The error these people are making is confusing the adoption of the term by the heterosexual community, and thus the English language as a whole, with its origin.”
I never said the use of the term *began* in the 1960s, I maintain that it was popularized by homosexual activists during that time as a way to refer to them other than the term homosexual.
As such, the wordorigins entry doesn’t really address the issue I raise, which was that there was a conscious effort at that time to change the terminology among heterosexuals. “Gay as a noun meaning “a (usually male) homosexual” is attested from 1971.” http://www.etymonline.com/g1etym.htm
cf. - “According to the Safe Schools Coalition of Washington’s Glossary for school employees: “Homosexual: Avoid this term; it is clinical, distancing and archaic. Sometimes appropriate in referring to behavior (although same-sex is the preferred adj.). When referring to people, as opposed to behavior, homosexual is considered derogatory and the terms gay and lesbian are preferred, at least in the Northwest.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay
Which sort of proves my point, although I find the use of the term “archaic” rather idiotic.